Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds

I on the other hand don't believe it's the job of the government to protect for-profit companies.

 

Why not? That includes most of our economy. And things like protecting the flow of resources benefits everyone. Not just companies.

 

Well he hasn't ' killed four thousand Americans for absolutely nothing yet. Course he still has a year or two. And he hasn't spent 4,000,000,000,000 on wars that accomplished nothing. But he still has awhile to meet Bush's stupidity.

 

assuming it is the US's responsibility to be the world police

 

Thank heaven Obama hasn't continued Bush's concept of government. We would be broke and the laughingstock of the entire world.

 

yes.. because if the US is known for anything, it's outperforming other first world countries in healthcare, education, and social safety nets, and NOT spending more money on military than the next 12 countries combined (all of whom are our allies)

you're a genius

 

Why should companies not simply adapt to market conditions?

 

Well

1) Far more Americans have died in Afghanistan under Obama than died there under Bush.

2) No. Obama spent trillions on a stimulus plan that did little or no good and a heath care program that has only made things worse.

 

That's putting it lightly, there have been more than triple the casualties under Obama in Afghanistan than there have been under Bush, meanwhile we've bombed 6 different countries under Obama, while under Bush we were bombing 4

The peak of the war in Iraq did happen under Bush, but it's debatable which president was more aggressive militarily overall

 

And no one can seriously debate that Iraq was in far, far better shape when Bush left office than it is now.

 

This made me laugh, then i realized you were serious.

 

Taxcutter says:
Free stuff outlay far exceeds defense outlay, even in times of active war.

 

and what is your model example of a first world country that spends more on military than welfare?

when it comes to education, health, pensions,poverty, and life expectancy.. the US doesn't even break the top 10, the only thing we are first in is military and prison population

maybe if we were doing better than the countries who emphasize less on military and more on living conditions you would have a point.. or if there were any country in the world who spends more on military than us.. but we're not, and there isn't. This idea that the issue is due to not enough military spending and too much welfare spending is completely irrational

 

J

Well your second point has nothing to do with the discussion at hand so we can ignore that since it has been discussed endlessly elsewhere.

As to your first point I guess what you are implying is Obama made a mistake by not getting out of Afganistan and Iraq faster. Probably true we can blame Obama for trying to straighten out the disaster Bush created instead of just admitting it was FUBAR and getting out immediately.

 

I though we only spent more on the military then the next ten countries combined. Gosh, we have even better priorities than I thought. Conservatives are probably going for fifteen.

- - - Updated - - -

So how many troops do you think we should send back?

 

You really can't now. The damage is done. We should've left 23,000 as the Pentagon recommended.

 

We have a Commerce Clause, not a common Offense clause, nor a general warfare clause. I believe we should enjoin the Commerce Clause on our federal Congress as a precedent in modern times.

 

I'm curious as to how those who harp on military spending think the U.S. is going to win the next war if the military is downsized significantly.

And don't spout this BS about "If we didn't have such a big military, we wouldn't get into as many conflicts".

We didn't ask the North Koreans to invade South Korea in 1950.

We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait in 1990.

We didn't ask Al Queda to blow away the WTC in 2001.

 

Ah yes, liberal logic? Not for the rational or reasonable.

 

Liberals also live with a fantasy that if the U.S. did not spend so much on defense then our allies would step up and fill the gaps.

That won't happen. In addition, America's current allies are basically combat ineffective when it comes to deployable military power overseas.

Even in Libya when the U.S. was famously "leading from behind" the U.S. ended up supplying the vast bulk of NATO firepower brought to bear.

 

when it comes to education, health, pensions,poverty, and life expectancy.. the US doesn't even break the top 10, the only thing we are first in is military and prison population

^Most of those have little direct relationship to how much the federal govt. spends.

And if you are going to make a big deal quoting Eisenhower you should read ALL of his "military industrial complex" speech where Eisenhower emphasizes the vital importance of a very strong standing U.S. military.

 

Precisely so. Our leftwingers substitute wishful thinking and emotionalism for logical thought. So it goes.

 

That's right we are fighting asymmetrical warfare where the enemy wears women's Burqa's and uses children as shields. Each time a terrorist is killed it's claimed he was a civilian and not a fighter. There was a time when the enemy wore a uniform. That is a thing of the past and now we find that Obama is either too cowardly or incapable of grasping the significance of the war being fought in the Middle East.

 

The US spends more on defense then the next 20 countries combined. All of these countries are our allies.

We have tens of thousands of tanks, planes, and other equipment and weapons sitting in hangers, unused, and yet the the GOP is pushing for more and more. Why? Because they either own stock in weapons ,manufactures themselves, or have financial backers who do. It's all about money, and making profits for the Military-Industrial Complex.

We pay hundreds of billions of dollars every year in upkeep costs for hundreds of bases all over the world. We have over 50,000 troops in Germany alone, and have not had a directly need for the bases there since WWII.

We could cut the defense budget by 1/3, and still have enough to cover all essential costs.

 

Since we were stupid enough to send troops in the first place I see no reason why we can't be stupid enough to send them back.