The obvious target for spending cuts

[TheBigotBasher]

NATO accounts for all but 2/3rds of military spending. This excludes Veterans Affairs, the Dept of Homeland Security, the TSA and all of the other "not quite" military expenditure of the US and of course the budgets for the "Intelligence Units".

The US and NATO are operating a policy of military socialism. It is the only jobs initiative that the right support. Die for lies. Die for the profits of Marconi, Halliburton, etc, etc.

To justify the money the military told us they were fighting this:



when in reality they were fighting this:



To the literally heartless, undead, former Vice President - can we have a refund? After all your former company and your "blind trust" benefitted?

Added: I cannot help think that if Shrub had been President for WW2, instead of going to war against Germany he would have sent troops to Papa New Guinea.

PS - just been reading wikileaks - hence pissed off.

[humbled_opinion]

1. Cut the Military Spending, yeah right.....

I don't think that plays well coming from a President that escalated War on one front, never really removed troops from another front and started a third war of choice all by himself...The real tragedy is that the anti-war protestors and many on the left that had such strong voices in opposition to Bush wars have now lost most of their credibility by being blindly led into continued war by Obama.....

[TheBigotBasher]

2. It is not just President Obama.

Why do you think that military manufacturing is spread across so many swing States? Why do tyou think Congress adds more orders to those requested by the DofD?

The right accuses social security of being a "ponzi scheme". The biggest ponzi scheme is military expenditure because it is pretty much immune from being cut - precisely because of the number of House seats that depend upon it.

[humbled_opinion]

4. I agree with you... the problem

is that Obama has politically backed himself into a corner. If he champions for significant military spending cuts he will be attacked as a War President denying equipment and funding to troops he sent to battle.... it is the politics of cutting spending when you are waging war that will get clobbered by moms and dads whose sons and daughters are in harms way.

he should have de-escalated all the wars and refused to get us in the chaos in Libya.....

When it all hits the fan, there is going to be alot of people asking why did the Democrats allow a Democratic President to escalate war?

Personally, I have no defense for him and for the life of me I don't know why we don't see hundreds of protestors every day calling for an end to this senseless destruction.

[RKP5637]

6. War is basically out of sight out of mind anymore for most Americans. During the

Vietnam war eventually it was in front of us every night, but today we get snippets of info and sound-bites from MSM and someone else is fighting these wars and mostly all of the horrors, death and destruction that goes with them are invisible to most Americans.

[humbled_opinion]

9. It wasn't out of sight out of mind

When Bush was in the White House.... We had very visible very vocal demonstrations... What happened? What about credibility? What happens when a Republican is back in the White House you think we can gear up the Anti-war crowd and be said to have even a shred of credibiltiy? It will be drummed out as all partisan politics and nothing about war....

[RKP5637]

10. I think the mindset of some Americans is changing and I don't like its drift. I think

it's becoming more callous. I have nothing to base that on, it's just a gut feeling.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. The biggest argument in support of Libya

was Rwanda. In Rwanda US policy was to all extents and purposes nothing more than to get the whites out. The US was seen to have allowed 800,000 people to be slaughtered by the Hutus. Sitting in the room to persuade President Obama to get involved in Libya was the wife of the man who allowed that to happen.

Sarkosy and Cameron put a simple case to the US and the UN. Would they allow a repeat?

Of course the main problem now is not the action in Libya, which costs infinitely less than the actions of Afghanistan and Iraq but the spread of the demand for democracy and the repression of that demand. There is no way on Earth that Nato, even with its giant budget (much wasted on parts worth pennies being charged out at $$$$s), could ever respond.

So what to do? Let the people die?

[humbled_opinion]

8. Don't give me that false choice crap...

People are dying all over the world is it the U.S. that should intervene on all fronts?

[RKP5637]

11. The world is a really nasty place, the older I get the more I realize how

really horrid it is. My concern is the US just can't police the whole world and play broker for who has the power, which deaths we tolerate, be the arms broker and on and on. Eventually, it's going to cave in on the US.

We are only 5% of the worlds' population and IMO it's a pretty heavy task to think we can bridge all of the differences and frankly outright evil in the world.

At this stage I'm more concerned about all of the problems within our own borders and the increasing separation and hostilities of many in this country combined with the questionable future of our economy, and that combined with the millions of people here living destitute lives. And those really with no future young and old. It's a toxic brew and dangerous.

[liberal N proud]

3. Military spending has replaced Social Security as the third rail of politics

The GOP and their military industrial complex has become so successfully embedded in the system that they cannot be touched.

This will bring the ultimate destruction of our democracy.

[RKP5637]

5. True! It's a heavy untouchable weight around what remains of a democracy gradually

sinking that which it professes to protect.

[Johnyawl]

12. You and Sarah Palin should sign up for a history class...

..."I cannot help think that if Shrub had been President for WW2, instead of going to war against Germany he would have sent troops to Papa New Guinea"

We DID send troops to Papau New Guinea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea_campaign