Skip to main content

Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.
--For at least 100,000 years, humans have pondered the stars. Do orangutans ponder them now?--
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Put me on the list. I mentioned in another thread addressed to Bill Gray, (that I,m sure he will not answer) about the cost of the two wars. Over $735 billion in Iraq and over $285 billion in Afghanistan. Remember too, this has been going on since 2001. That's a long time. Are we going to bankrupt our country for these two? IT'S GOTTA' STOP! We as a whole are going to stand by and do nothing until it's too late. And I firmly believe that day is coming soon.
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?
The United States spends as much money on Defense as the rest of the world spends combined.
In fact, the largest single expense to our budget (when you consider veterans benefits) is the military .
We could cut our defense budget in half and still be the largest spender on defense in the world.
We MUST decrease our spending on the "military industrial complex" or it will lead us to bankruptcy. So many people whine and cry about the "social" safety net as the cure-all to our economic problems, but those things make such a small percent of the national budget that doing away with them in their entirety wouldn't make a dent.
To all these tea-baggers who constantly whine about the national debt, I say go for it- start with cutting the defense budget! If you are not willing to do that, you are a hypocrite and need to just wither away.
To address the topic specifically, yes , protracted wars are terrible for the country. If we decide to go to war, it should be quick, decisive, and total. For example, why the hell did we have resistance in Baghdad? Resistance- hell, why is there even a Baghdad left if there was resistance. As I recall we had no "resistance" at Hiroshima after we got through with them.
The Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, "wars" are not really wars at all but police action . All were fought wrongly, and all will ultimately get the same half-assed result. Iraq ,of course, should never have been started to start with, and will not end well I fear. We should get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. Why wait ? Yes, Resident, just pack up our stuff, tell them "we have enjoyed your little war, needed to learn how to fight in the streets , but it is time for us to get out. If you want us to stay to provide security, you will have to pay for it. We are going to quit providing you with free medical care for your citizens, as there are some idiots in our own country who think we shouldn't even provide health care for our people, we are going to quit building you new schools, hospitals, etc, 'cause we can't even afford to educate our own kids. Good bye, have a wonderful life".
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
The United States spends as much money on Defense as the rest of the world spends combined.
In fact, the largest single expense to our budget (when you consider veterans benefits) is the military .
We could cut our defense budget in half and still be the largest spender on defense in the world.
We MUST decrease our spending on the "military industrial complex" or it will lead us to bankruptcy. So many people whine and cry about the "social" safety net as the cure-all to our economic problems, but those things make such a small percent of the national budget that doing away with them in their entirety wouldn't make a dent.
To all these tea-baggers who constantly whine about the national debt, I say go for it- start with cutting the defense budget! If you are not willing to do that, you are a hypocrite and need to just wither away.
To address the topic specifically, yes , protracted wars are terrible for the country. If we decide to go to war, it should be quick, decisive, and total. For example, why the hell did we have resistance in Baghdad? Resistance- hell, why is there even a Baghdad left if there was resistance. As I recall we had no "resistance" at Hiroshima after we got through with them.
The Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, "wars" are not really wars at all but police action . All were fought wrongly, and all will ultimately get the same half-assed result. Iraq ,of course, should never have been started to start with, and will not end well I fear. We should get the hell out of Iraq ASAP. Why wait ? Yes, Resident, just pack up our stuff, tell them "we have enjoyed your little war, needed to learn how to fight in the streets , but it is time for us to get out. If you want us to stay to provide security, you will have to pay for it. We are going to quit providing you with free medical care for your citizens, as there are some idiots in our own country who think we shouldn't even provide health care for our people, we are going to quit building you new schools, hospitals, etc, 'cause we can't even afford to educate our own kids. Good bye, have a wonderful life".
......BRAVO SEEWEED!!!
Thank you Seaweed. I could not have stated it any better.
And, I think the "fighting terroism" banner is one of the most over-used slogans of all. What have we accomplished in the fight against terroism? We been there for almost TEN years. Hell, we beat Germany and Japan both in less than 5 years. But, if I suggest we withdraw from Iraq and Agganistan I am accused of not supporting the "fight against terroism". I just want to see our country survive. Can the bad guys not just walk across the Mexican-US border? And to Shoals, no I don't have a plan that I know would work, although I do have a few ideas. Like fighting fire with fire. Precise surgical strikes could take out a training site in hours. Don't let 'um fool you. Our government knows if a rooster scratches his butt in one of those countries. Anyway, someone better come up with an answer quick or we will be in complete financial collapse. I also, like the idea stated above. Just pack up and leave. What they gonna' do? Either that or just annex both countries and TAKE the oil. That's what this is all about anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
Thank you Seaweed. I could not have stated it any better.
And, I think the "fighting terroism" banner is one of the most over-used slogans of all. What have we accomplished in the fight against terroism? We been there for almost TEN years. Hell, we beat Germany and Japan both in less than 5 years. But, if I suggest we withdraw from Iraq and Agganistan I am accused of not supporting the "fight against terroism". I just want to see our country survive. Can the bad guys not just walk across the Mexican-US border? And to Shoals, no I don't have a plan that I know would work, although I do have a few ideas. Like fighting fire with fire. Precise surgical strikes could take out a training site in hours. Don't let 'um fool you. Our government knows if a rooster scratches his butt in one of those countries. Anyway, someone better come up with an answer quick or we will be in complete financial collapse. I also, like the idea stated above. Just pack up and leave. What they gonna' do? Either that or just annex both countries and TAKE the oil. That's what this is all about anyway.
..........Great post paw-paw!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.
I don't think we will be seeing a major cut in defense spending any time soon because politicians love jobs bills and there is no bigger jobs bill than the military. Right now many politicians and economists are afraid that we'll get another full scoop of recession and a major cut of the defense budget would certainly put a lot of people in the unemployment line. Certainly the military needs to be drawn down in size somewhat but it must be done slowly and with considerable planning and also in better economic conditions.
Sorry if I came off the wrong way folks. I realize cutting the military budget alone is not the cure-all. We as a nation have got to move away from our entitlement thinking before we make any real progress can be made. Thanks for the course correction. It's just that I am strongly against this war and I tend to get on my soapbox. But the cost of the war is killin us.
quote:
Originally posted by paw-paw:
Sorry if I came off the wrong way folks. I realize cutting the military budget alone is not the cure-all. We as a nation have got to move away from our entitlement thinking before we make any real progress can be made. Thanks for the course correction. It's just that I am strongly against this war and I tend to get on my soapbox. But the cost of the war is killin us.
....I agree paw paw, it is!! More importantly it Has and Is killing American service men and women! For WHAT???????? That part of the world will never change. It's been the same way for centuries.
There are so many aspects of this that there is no "one" answer. In the past, wars were fought to win. That is not the case anymore. The conflicts that the US has been involved with in the last 50 years were never fought to win. The American people do not have the stomach anymore to do what it takes to win a war. By that I mean there would be a huge uproar if the US actually did bomb anywhere to actually accomplish anything. Our generation does not know what a true war is. During World War I and II, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War our country believed in and were willing to sacrifice for "the cause." Even those who lost sons and daughters felt that their sacrifice was worth the cause. Not anymore. Even people who support our missions now do not want any lives lost whether it be ours or theirs. And yes the economic impact causes many to not want the conflicts to end. That has always been the case. But I can't support just walking away from these people either. It has always been the heart of the US to help those that are being abused and oppressed. The area that we are involved with now has always been in conflict and always will be. I don't have the answer as to how to find the balance nor have I heard anyone else that does either.
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.
"The journey of 1000 miles begins with one step" Confucius .

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. According to the GAO (Government Accounting Office) the healthcare bill (aka :insurance reform) will save somewhere around 68 Billion dollars. The question is , can we afford NOT to have it? If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. I can accept that , although I can also make a case that we would only be in trouble for less than $4 Trillion . (not that that is great either) Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.


I gotta add that while most of you know I support universal health care for our citizens, that is not the point here. I DETEST providing universal health care for citizens of Iraq , or any other country for that matter. Iraq has plenty of money in oil, and they should pump it and provide for their own selves. We should not be paying for it for them when we don't even do it for our own.
I once took a course in college in Political Philosophy.

In that course, came the issue of "conscionability". As an example of such, it could be said that if a country could prevent or stop a grievous offense, yet did not, it would be "unconscionable".

It should be obvious that the issue of unconscionability is not the issue that drives US military policy. We sat by while horrible offenses were committed in Bosnia, until we were shamed into interfering. We sat out the attempted genocide in East Timor. We sit by still, as unmentionable horrors are inflicted on the Sudanese and the Ugandans.

The preservation of a national interest by military force, with little regard for the interests of those who we oppose, is the very definition of imperialism.

Why is Iraq important? Why is Israel? You know the answers.

Why is Iran important? Would we be justified in a pre-emptive strike to prevent them from an unjustified attack on Israel, Iraq, or India?

What would the Swedes say? Or the Argentines?
If you travel internationally you will find that universal health care is not what you want. Alternative medicine (Chiropractic/Naturaopathic/Homeopathic/home prevention etc) are so readily utalized in many countries, because the "national" health care doesn't meet the real needs of the people. The people are so burdened by taxes and the waiting list is so long that it may take months to get a PET scan etc.. (even when they have already diagnosed you with serious illness such as cancer.) People pay for the alternatives out of pocket, much cheaper than here and aren't mandated by insurance of any kind. As hard as it is, American's really need to take a serious look at themselves and buck up and take responsibility for their own actions and health.

What part of military do you want to cut anyway? The majority of service men make a pittance, and if you cut back where will we be if no one is trained or we don't have equipment when attacked on our own soil. I do feel that we spend a lot policing the World......but if we aren't watching them, do you think they aren't watching us?
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.


Mid,

Great post, and I find myself in some agreement with you.

At the risk of speaking in conclusions, here is my prognostication:

The USA will spend itself into ruin. Military spending will be one part of it, a large part of it, but not all. Most will be salaries and pensions of public sector employees, and checks to individuals (Social Security, WIC, etc.)

Responsibility will not occur to Congress until there is a major monetary crisis. Even then, it might not occur to Congress.

Witness our current situation. Our economy is relatively weak, yet we produce money through the Federal Reserve to prop up our economy after a fashion.

No one says we're not printing money. Given our National Debt, we are prolonging and exacerbating the problem. Why should we have any confidence that we will be able to pay our way out of tens of trillions of dollars of national debt? Our competitiveness with China? The profit we make on military spending?

You know as well as I that we live in a global economy, and the profit potential of the USA is not sufficient to realize the national debt.

What will happen when the notes come due and we cannot pay?

Is gold the answer?

Is lead?

Is canned food for years?

I'm asking.
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
I gotta add that while most of you know I support universal health care for our citizens, that is not the point here.


You're right...the merits of universal healthcare are not the point. the question was "is the lack of universal healthcare caused by excessive military spending". No.

A journey does start with a step,but Obamacare just like the war in the Middle East is a step in the wrong direction. The original post and other previous posts imply that if we didn't spend so much on the military, we could afford universal healthcare. That's just not true. Think about it.

Suppose you cut the military budget by 90%, from $900 billion to $100 billion (it would be kinda hard too pay, cloth, feed, and house the 1.5 million personnel, and equip all the branches of the armed forces for $100 billion). You've saved $800 billion dollars. Now suppose the GAO is right Roll Eyes and the healthcare plan saves another $68 billion. You've only got $700 billion more too cut...where is it gonna come from? The military (liberals favorite punching bag) has already been raped. Who's next?

The typical response is "we need to raise taxes". The sad truth is if we cut everything (and I mean everything) across the board 15%, we'd still have to double our income tax to break even.

I'm not even a tea-bagger (whatever that is), but I know being thirteen trillion dollars in debt is not good.
Mid,

13 T in debt is not overcomable. We will default.

What will happen then? That is my question.

We will live to see the collapse of the American dollar. It exists as nothing more or less than confidence in the American economy, after all. It is not backed, even by a small percentage, by gold or any other tangible commodity.

Who has confidence in the American economy now, considering our debt?

Gold or lead, that is my question.
quote:
Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?


Good grief--that old dead notion coming up again--that if we don't fight
'em in Iraq or Afghanistan, the A-rabs will come swarming over here to our shores to do us damage. Bullfeathers to that nutty notion. They are not inhibited from coming to this country and doing us damage because we decided to go buccaneering away in two backward Islamic countries. They are not getting in and doing damage to us because--we are told--the astonishingly effective homeland security systems put in place during 8 years of the Bush maladministration have been phenomenally effective! Do you really think those highly-touted, near-miraculous systems would become less effective if we pulled out of those two nations and left it to their the citizens to decide their own fates?

It was the U.S invasion of Iraq IN IRAQ and the U.S invasion of Afghanistan IN AFGHANISTAN that energized the fires of Islamic righteousness in the breasts of Muslims within those nations and those from other Islamic nations who came into Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their Islamic brethren from "western imperialism." If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably.

But they did not commandeer ships or planes and head full speed for our shores. They went to those places on the globe where GWD and DC and DR decided we somehow needed to go to hold back the islamic menace. Then, once we got into Afghanistan and whupped some Taliban butt, and had that particular Islamic menace on the run, we pulled out most of our forces and deployed them to whup up on Saddam and interdict those weapons of mass destruction that never were.
We botched things in both countries and have stayed around botching up things even more, but in the meantime, no A-rabs have been able to do any more mischief on our shores than the hapless Christmas day undies-bombing incompetent who succeeded only in scorching his own crotch! And all this during a time when we have given the 20 million or so of wildly-extremist, America-hating Islamic fanatics as much inspiration as we possibly could to come on and git us if they can!

You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that the puissance of the Bush homeland security program has given this nation a virtually impenetrable and astonishingly effective defense against Islamic terrorism and at the same time argue that we must continue to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to keep these evil devils at bay.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Mid,

13 T in debt is not overcomable. We will default.

What will happen then? That is my question.

We will live to see the collapse of the American dollar. It exists as nothing more or less than confidence in the American economy, after all. It is not backed, even by a small percentage, by gold or any other tangible commodity.

Who has confidence in the American economy now, considering our debt?

Gold or lead, that is my question.


I don't know what's gonna happen, but I'm pretty sure I'll be six feet under when it hits the fan. My children and grandchildren will be left to deal with the consequences. The best advice I can give 'em...from the way things are looking...learn to speak Chinese.
Then, BeternU, why didn't your Obamessiah do what he said and discontinue the Bush counter-terrorism policies? He has not only continued many, he has expanded others. It has gotten so bad, that one of the left's darlings, "MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet -- suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush", as Politico's Josh Gerstein recently wrote about Obama's Terrorism policies.

In his New Republic article, Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, "reviews what he calls the "eleven essential elements" of "the Bush approach to counterterrorism policy" and documents how -- with only a couple of minor exceptions -- Obama has embraced all of them. In those cases where Obama has purported to "change" these elements, those changes are almost all symbolic and ceremonial, and the few changes that have any substance to them (banning the already-empty CIA black sites and prohibiting no-longer-authorized torture techniques) are far less substantial than Obama officials purport. None of Goldsmith's analysis is grounded in the proposition that Obama hasn't yet acted to change Bush policies, thus rendering a nonsequitur the response that "Obama needs more time; it's only been 4 months." Goldsmith is describing affirmative steps Obama has already announced to adopt the core Bush "terrorism" policies.

Just consider some of Goldsmith's examples: Obama makes a melodramatic showing of ordering Guantanamo closed but then re-creates its systematic denial of detainee rights in Bagram, and "[l]ast month Secretary of Defense Gates hinted that up to 100 suspected terrorists would be detained without trial." Obama announces that all interrogations must comply with the Army Field Manual but then has his CIA Director announce that he will seek greater interrogation authority whenever it is needed and convenes a task force to determine which enhanced interrogation methods beyond the Field Manual should be authorized. He railed against Bush's Guantanamo military commissions but then preserved them with changes that are plainly cosmetic.

Obama has been at least as aggressive as Bush was in asserting radical secrecy doctrines in order to prevent courts from ruling on illegal torture and spying programs and to block victims from having a day in court. He has continued and even "ramped up" so-called "targeted killings" in Pakistan and Afghanistan which, as Goldsmith puts it, "have predictably caused more collateral damage to innocent civilians." He has maintained not only Bush's rendition policy but also the standard used to determine to which countries a suspect can be rendered, and has kept Bush's domestic surveillance policies in place and unchanged. Most of all, he has emphatically endorsed the Bush/Cheney paradigm that we are engaged in a "war" against Terrorists -- with all of the accompanying presidential "war powers" -- rather than the law enforcement challenge that John Kerry, among others, advocated".

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...ald/2009/05/19/obama
Obama continues Bush policies
GENE VEITH

Charles Krauthammer, in his column entitled Obama in Bush Clothing, discusses “the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.”

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: “The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) — and now Guantanamo.”

Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition — turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets — claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus — to detainees in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

Krauthammer gives President Obama credit: “The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established. That’s happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.”

Democrats excoriated Bush for all of these policies. What does it mean that most Democrats seem to be fine with the same policies as long as Obama is doing them?
While I can disagree around the edges with you, your core statement that Obama has continued the Bush policies on this "war" is one I agree with. I do believe that Obama pays far less attention to Iraq. In fact, almost every speech Bush made sounded like he was trying to justify his personal war on Iraq. At least Obama is putting more emphasis in Afghanistan, but like I said before, I doubt if Iraq will come out good, and Afghanistan will probably not turn out much better.
I didn't like it when Bush did it.
I don't like it now that Obama is doing it.,
I believe most Obama supporters feel the same way, and we have some disappointment in him on this matter.
Regardless of the crap from Fox and Rush, Obama has turned out to be a centrist, and from where I am looking , he is slightly to the right of center. I was hoping for a much more progressive administration.
Other than on this topic, I know you are joking.
He is the most leftist, socialist, marxist, radical ever to hold the office.

On the subject of counter terrorism, subsequent to the daily presidential briefings, he realized he was out of his league, during the campaign. And it's not just the "war", it's The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) — and GITMO, rendition — turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries, and the denial of habeas corpus — to detainees in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, to name a few.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


I disagree. When a government is allowed to deficit spend, then they can spend as much as they want on anything they want. That is until the economy collapses.
quote:
Originally posted by gracies old man:
Then, BeternU, why didn't your Obamessiah do what he said and discontinue the Bush counter-terrorism policies? He has not only continued many, he has expanded others. It has gotten so bad, that one of the left's darlings, "MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet -- suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush", as Politico's Josh Gerstein recently wrote about Obama's Terrorism policies.

In his New Republic article, Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, "reviews what he calls the "eleven essential elements" of "the Bush approach to counterterrorism policy" and documents how -- with only a couple of minor exceptions -- Obama has embraced all of them. In those cases where Obama has purported to "change" these elements, those changes are almost all symbolic and ceremonial, and the few changes that have any substance to them (banning the already-empty CIA black sites and prohibiting no-longer-authorized torture techniques) are far less substantial than Obama officials purport. None of Goldsmith's analysis is grounded in the proposition that Obama hasn't yet acted to change Bush policies, thus rendering a nonsequitur the response that "Obama needs more time; it's only been 4 months." Goldsmith is describing affirmative steps Obama has already announced to adopt the core Bush "terrorism" policies.

Just consider some of Goldsmith's examples: Obama makes a melodramatic showing of ordering Guantanamo closed but then re-creates its systematic denial of detainee rights in Bagram, and "[l]ast month Secretary of Defense Gates hinted that up to 100 suspected terrorists would be detained without trial." Obama announces that all interrogations must comply with the Army Field Manual but then has his CIA Director announce that he will seek greater interrogation authority whenever it is needed and convenes a task force to determine which enhanced interrogation methods beyond the Field Manual should be authorized. He railed against Bush's Guantanamo military commissions but then preserved them with changes that are plainly cosmetic.

Obama has been at least as aggressive as Bush was in asserting radical secrecy doctrines in order to prevent courts from ruling on illegal torture and spying programs and to block victims from having a day in court. He has continued and even "ramped up" so-called "targeted killings" in Pakistan and Afghanistan which, as Goldsmith puts it, "have predictably caused more collateral damage to innocent civilians." He has maintained not only Bush's rendition policy but also the standard used to determine to which countries a suspect can be rendered, and has kept Bush's domestic surveillance policies in place and unchanged. Most of all, he has emphatically endorsed the Bush/Cheney paradigm that we are engaged in a "war" against Terrorists -- with all of the accompanying presidential "war powers" -- rather than the law enforcement challenge that John Kerry, among others, advocated".

http://www.salon.com/news/opin...ald/2009/05/19/obama


Well, gom, I don't know what is in the mind of the president, so I can not explain why he is or is not doing some of those things you cite. I note though, by the nature of your response ("Then, BeternU, why didn't your Obamessiah do what he said....?"), that you chose not to take issue with the basic premise of what I posted, namely that there is a powerful dissonance between the claim that Bush has created a virtually impenetrable national security system and the assertion that we gotta fight 'em over there lest they come after us over here. How about responding to what I was actually posting about?

I would applaud an instantaneous pull-out from both Afghanistan and Iraq at this stage of the folly of our being over there nurturing the indigenous corruption of those wacky tribal assemblages pretending to be nations..
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.


Excellent point, mid, and I stand partially corrected.

Excessive military spending is ONE of the reasons, however.

A reckoning is coming, and it will not be of our choice or at a time of our choosing. A trillion here, a trillion there, it adds up.

We can only hope that in November we elect a gaggle of born-again fiscal conservatives who can do arithmetic. Yeah, I know. It's asking too much.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.


Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.


Excellent point, mid, and I stand partially corrected.

Excessive military spending is ONE of the reasons, however.

A reckoning is coming, and it will not be of our choice or at a time of our choosing. A trillion here, a trillion there, it adds up.

We can only hope that in November we elect a gaggle of born-again fiscal conservatives who can do arithmetic. Yeah, I know. It's asking too much.


I would say the reckoning comes when the world economic situation become clearer. Right now US bond yields are low and our treasuries are in demand. That's not because we are in good shape. More like the US is the least ugly girl at the dance. When we cease to be such watch out.
Regardless of the war situation the Obama healthcare plan is a disaster for this country. Economically we are in a mess with no plan for a way out. Our country is surviving on payday loans and eventually we will have to reconcile. The reason for the protracted war is because the politicians and Americans do not have the stomach to fight a winning strategy. The rules of engagement that our troops are under make it impossible to win. We should either fight to win or get our troops home. We need to stop policing the world and take care of our own. The military budget could be cut in half and we would still have the worlds most powerful military.
I agree...we are in a mess. The statement"we could cut our military budget in half and still have the most powerful military in the world" is subjective. 600 million Chinese might not think so. While it's true that if we cut military spending in half, we would still be spending more money, and be better equipped, and have a technological advantage, that doesn't automatically equate too most powerful.

As I said earlier, even if we could cut military spending to the bone, we'd have a lot farther to go. And now that people are used too them, cutting pensions and social programs would be tougher than cutting military spending.
Well, that's true. However, the question should eventually come up as to "what do you want to cut?". Most of the whining on this forum is about the social programs, welfare, etc, and while I think that is a good place to put some cuts in, as a percent, it just wouldn't amount to much, so my real point is, why not start with the largest discretionary budget items, and by far, that is the Military. Also, as so many on this forum have pointed out in the subject of education, more money does not necessarily mean better.
The only way we will get ourselves out of this current mess is the same way we got out during the Clinton Admin. Grow our way out. We looked back to the Great Depression as an example of some things to do, and some not to do. We should look now at the Clinton adm as a model on how to get out of our current state. Remember, only Bush has left a larger deficit than Reagan, so it can be done.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Regardless of the war situation the Obama healthcare plan is a disaster for this country. Economically we are in a mess with no plan for a way out. Our country is surviving on payday loans and eventually we will have to reconcile. The reason for the protracted war is because the politicians and Americans do not have the stomach to fight a winning strategy. The rules of engagement that our troops are under make it impossible to win. We should either fight to win or get our troops home. We need to stop policing the world and take care of our own. The military budget could be cut in half and we would still have the worlds most powerful military.
I agree,let the military make the decisions and keep the politicians out of it. Military know so much more about how to handle this. Let the soldiers do their job, and they will be home much sooner. I wonder how many of the politicians have ever served our country!!!
Last edited by Just_

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×