What the FUCK Clinton, Obama & Biden!, REALLY!??

[and-justice-for-all]

Most Democratic Candidates Support Enlarging U.S. Military
A new survey conducted by the Hill newspaper has found the majority of Democratic presidential candidates back increasing the size of the military. Last month Senator Barack Obama called for an increase in Pentagon spending and an extra 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines. Senators Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden and former Senator John Edwards have also backed building a larger military. The Hill reports that only two Democratic candidates -- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Congressman Dennis Kucinich -- are openly discussing cutting the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/1328230

[TwilightGardener]

1. Our military is getting the poop whooped out of it, and the Afghanistan

thing isn't going away even if Iraq does. We NEED to be prepared to fight yet another war--this is good news to me. Shows they are serious about defense and won't concede this ground to the R nominee.

[Colobo]

2. Exactly.

The anti-war crowd needs to understand that we NEED a strong military. We just need to use it wisely.

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Pass on all things War...thanks! nt

[Bucky]

72. I don't think you appreciate how badly Bush has fucked up the world security order

I don't think you appreciate how much Bush has increased the number of people in world who want to do harn to anything associated with the United States. The "Pizza Delivery" terrorists in New Jersey may have been fuck ups and may not have been too far along in their plans, but they are also an inevitability. Al-Qaeda has tripled in size since the US invaded Iraq. Our troops and allies in Afghanistan (which includes Nato forces, by the way) are currently out numbered and outgunned and are losing ground to Taliban forces.

Now that George Bush and his crew has set the house on fire, do you really want to reduce the size of the fire department?

[dave_p]

78. Because it's like the fire dept from Fahrenheit 451?

More troops doesn't address the problem of decentralized underground groups intent on doing harm. Troops are for use against other countries. The US hasn't been attacked by any other country since 1941.

If "Al-Qaeda has tripled in size since the US invaded Iraq", that suggests that more troops for more traditional ground operations is a poor substitute for modern methods of targeting diffuse networks and preserving security at home. In fact using the army in this way only creates more enemies.

US forces in Afghanistan aren't outgunned: they're operating in hostile terrain against an enemy with local experience and a generation of conflict behind it. It was the diversion of troops to Iraq that reduced the Afghanistan mission to a strategic backwater.

The US has more than enough troops for its security needs, once it pulls out of its Iraq debacle. Army expansion is just an instrument for more failed occupations, more Fallujas, more Hadithas and more future jihadis. It's a 1917 answer to a 2007 problem.

[charlie]

12. We have a strong military

A monstrously strong military, by any measure. Any army can be broken if it's misapplied, misused by idiots, no matter how big, how hi-tech, how much money you spend on it. Replenishing, refurbishing what we have is one thing, expanding it is ridiculous. If we don't attend to domestic economics and infrastructure soon enough, we're going to find ourselves in a situation similar to the USSR, a shell of a country paying exorbitant prices to maintain a swollen, unnecessary military.

[ronnie624]

28. Yes,

we need more effective strategies for invading and exercising dominance over other nations.

Isn't that right, Katzenkavalier?

[paulk]

57. we also need to get the national guard back here in the USA

Increasing the size of the military will accomplish that

[Common Sense Party]

5. I applaud your common sense.

A well-funded, well-equipped, well-trained military is precisely what we need and should be promoting.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. And a half a trillion a year isn't "well funded"?

Gimme a break.

[Common Sense Party]

15. If they don't have body armor and uparmored Humvees and are

getting blown apart by IED's, I'd say they aren't properly funded.

"Well-funded" doesn't just refer to the number of dollars provided in the budget, but WHERE and HOW they are allocated and used.

It's the same with every part of the budget. Look at education. Most school districts get plenty of money, but much of it is pissed away in administration and doesn't reach the classrooms and the kids.

In the military, the money isn't getting to the soldier and the marine on the front line. Where it's all going, I don't know. But I imagine there are a lot of contractors with gaudy McMansions who could tell us.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I'm not saying don't use the money they get more wisely.

But if they're not using the money they already get to do that shit, what makes anyone think throwing MORE money at them is the solution?

I agree with you: the issue is that the American People are getting ripped off. Again. The reason the troops don't get body armor and humvee armor isn't that there "isn't enough money". It's that the folks GETTING the money don't CARE about that.

Get our people out of Iraq, and then the lack of body armor and Humvee armor there won't be a problem.

[dave_p]

81. So why make it bigger?

Fund it, train it, equip it. Throwing more (increasingly reluctant) recruits at it isn't the answer.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. If they can't do it on half a trillion a year --NOT including hidden, secret "black" budget items,

NOT including special war appropriations like the $400 Billion we've ALREADY spent on Iraq...-- I mean, hey, I'm all for "common defense", but how much the fuck do they actually NEED? We already spend more than every other nation on the Planet COMBINED on "Defense". At what point does the Military Industrial Complex, that was an overbloated suckling pig fifty years ago when Ike warned us about it, have "enough"?

Barring an extra-solar system invasion from Gliese 581c, I think they get PLENTY of money, thankyouverymuch.

And we're already in debt- where is this extra scratch for the Pentagon, scraping by with a measly half trillion a year, supposed to come FROM?

I know, I hate to be a whiny socially libertarian liberal type, but you combine all that with the $40 Billion A YEAR we spend trying to keep cancer patients and Willie Nelson from smoking pot (that's not including, again, the costs of our being the number one per capita incarcerator of non-violent offenders in the industrialized world)... um, pretty soon you're talking about real taxpayer money. Spent on shit that is NOT generating anything resembling a return on investment for the American people.

More money wouldn't solve Iraq, the problem with Iraq is that it was a bad idea predicated on even worse lies. Getting out of Iraq might free up the resources for Afghanistan (Particularly because THAT invasion was obstensibly predicated on sending the $500 Billion-a-year U.S. Military after one guy) but the bottom line is, the military doesn't NEED more money. The military needs to be reserved for REAL threats, and the money needs to be spent here at home, on things like infrastructure and a Single Payer Health Care System.

[Rosemary2205]

55. EXCELLENT rant!

:toast:

[Exiled in America]

18. How prepared do we need to be? (graph inside)

[Warren DeMontague]

19. THAT'S NOT ENOUGH!

You wimpy Democrats, you just don't understand. If you're not prepared to spend EVERY PENNY WE DON'T HAVE without that nagging, whiny peacenik crap about "what about the $400 Billion we gave you LAST week" You obviously don't understand that the world is a dangerous place, and it's never more dangerous than when you don't let government professionals guard your wallet for you.

[and-justice-for-all]

24. Thats absolutly deplorable...59% WTF??..nt

[dsa]

26. this graph is misleading

because it only shows discretionary spending and not mandatory spending. discretionary spending is only about 1/3 of the total budget.

[Exiled in America]

29. Would that make it more or less?

I'm not sure the graph was trying to be misleading, it would really depend on what the commentary was about the graph, which I don't remember.

If you factor in mandatory spending, does that make the percentage more or less? Probably less, but still some huge dollar amount I'm guessing. I'd like to know what the actual bottom dollar amount is, and how it compares to spending in other categories.

Here's another interesting graph:



Still kind of makes you wonder how much military we really need...

[dsa]

31. it means the perecentage spent on the military is far less

the military accounts for something like 18% of the total budget. the vast majority goes into mandatory programs like social security and medicare.

[Exiled in America]

33. I read something, but I can't source it right now.....

Just now when I was looking for more graphs... I can go back and try to find it again later.

...it said that a group had tried to do some digging and discovered that the what the government says it spends on defense is really skewed, because it does not include explicitly military spending coming from other departments other than the pentagon (or something like that).

It went on to list a bunch of different studies that all had higher figures for military spending, from 25% up to 41%.

I haven't had time to read the details, but I must say it wouldn't surprise me if that were true.

[iverglas]

46. some interesting comparisons across space and time

These graphs are from a Quebec site called (in translation) Technology Assisted Skills Development Network, which operates with the participation of the Government of Quebec. It talks about the social universe, understanding change, appreciating diversity ... . I'll take it as not misrepresentational.

http://www.recitus.qc.ca/hist/rome/econo.htm

First, Canada (budget prior to current righter-wing federal government):



The legend is:
The public service: 18%
Other government programs: 11%
Transfers to provinces and territories: 17%
(provinces and territories are responsible for health and education, big tax eaters, among other things)
Employment insurance and seniors' benefits: 23%
(employment insurance is actually self-funded, and in fact used as a cash cow)
Debt repayment: 25%
Military and defence: 6%


Next up, the Roman Empire:



Distribution of wheat to the poor: 15%
Municipal services: 15%
Road construction: 3%
Games and spectacles: 2%
Military and defence: 65%


Hmm. Consider also the US budget. Which of the three pictures doesn't belong? Or: which two don't belong in the modern world?

[dsa]

49. again, misleading

1) do either of these show just discretionary spending or the entire budget? based on the legend, the canadian graph sounds like the entire budget. a comparable graph for the us would show defense taking up 25% at most, and probably closer to 15%.
2) how accurate is "budget data" for the roman empire? where did it come from? how was it assembled? what time period is it from?
3) canada has virtually no military and relies on its alliance with the us and nato for defense
4) the obvious differences in gnp/gdp (or whatever the equivalent would be for the roman empire)

bottom line--these graphs are comparing apples and oranges. this reminds me of a favorite homer simpson quote:

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Fourteen percent of all people know that."

[iverglas]

50. perhaps for the first time, but maybe not:

take the sour thing out of your mouth.

2) how accurate is "budget data" for the roman empire? where did it come from? how was it assembled? what time period is it from?

Do you really imagine that someone, i.e. me, would offer up a reconstruction of the Roman Empire budget for strict comparison with the present US budget without a tongue firmly planted in cheek? It must be a dry, boring old world you live in, if so.

3) canada has virtually no military and relies on its alliance with the us and nato for defense

And evidently the US has virtually no schools, and jams media signals from outside its borders.

Me, I just haven't noticed the US or anyone else defending me and mine lately. Have you?

[Warren DeMontague]

30. That's right. At 500 Billion A Year (not including the $400 Billion "supplementals" for Iraq, etc)

the M/I Complex is still being unfairly starved by, say, Social Security.

Of course, people pay INTO Social Security, too.

Here's an idea; how about the Discretionary Spending be funded by Discretionary Taxes?

That way, the people who like wars based on lies, or who want to give big cash-filled duffel bags to contractors to haul right back out of Iraq, or who think it's really important to spend $40 Billion a year keeping Willie Nelson from smoking pot... can pay for those vitally important programs.

Me, I'd fund NASA, our roadways, and a SPHC system. I guess that's why I'm part of the "loony left". :patriot:

[Exiled in America]

34. Ok I'm so embarassed -- what's a SPHC system?

Sometimes I'm really dumb.

[charlie]

35. Single Payer Health Care n/t

[dsa]

36. also remember that money spent on the military pays people

military spending doesn't just disappear down a hole. it pays the salaries of tens of thousands of people in the military, tens of thousand government civilians who support the military, and hundreds of thousands of contractor employees who develop the equipment used by the military. these people are among the best educated in the country and comprise a large segment of the middle class, including unionized laborers. defense spending also encourages development of advanced technology. without it, we wouldn't have the internet, jet aircraft, computers, space travel, cell phones, digital cameras, GPS, or many of the other devices you and i take for granted.

i'm not saying the military is perfect. it can abuse its power and it definitely could be more efficient and not waste so many resources. but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. With all that skill and education they should be able to find something useful to do.

Rather than march around, bedeck themselves with tinware, and practice killing other human beings.

[wuushew]

44. Increased US Military Spending Slows Economy

It is often believed that wars and military spending is good for the economy,but most economic models show the opposite is true. A recent simulation shows the increased level of military spending leads to fewer jobs and slower economic growth. After 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs; after 5 years, annual car and truck sales are projected to go down by 192,200

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=5439

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Many of those people could be put to work doing other things.

NASA, likewise, produces real-world technological advancements-- perhaps much more directly than the military ever can (what end-user consumer advancements can we expect from, say, cluster bombs?)

Excess people working for the oversized Military-Industrial complex (like those working for the bloated drug war/prison industrial complex) could be shifted relatively painlessly towards domestic projects like infrastructure repair, renewable energy R&D, and again, peaceful space exploration via NASA.

I'm not saying we don't need a Military- I just question whether we REALLY need to spend more than every other nation on the planet combined.

[tkmorris]

37. So?

The proportions it shows are entirely accurate. There is little sense in including things like Social Security or Medicaid/Medicare because those are funded by an entirely different set of taxes anyway.

Do you deny that we spend 10 times more on national defense than we do on education? 20 times as much as on science space and technology (including NASA)? 12 times more than is spent on health? 30 times more than the entire transportation department? The discretionary budget is just that, discretionary. It illustrates what we choose to spend money on. Now you make think differently, but I think our choices suck.

[dsa]

41. i hate sloppy research

the point that was being made in the first place was based on faulty information, and i was correcting the misleading perceptions it creates.

and by your logic, education is paid for by different taxes too--state income taxes, state/local property taxes, etc. plue a large portion of what is spent on the military also goes into the space program and r&d too. these things aren't as simple and clear cut as you want to make them.

my attitude is there should be no such thing as mandatory spending. it should all be discretionary and up for review every year so we really have a choice about where our money is going. the way the system is set up now, there's only about 25% of the budget that congress actually votes on every year (and the percentage is shrinking). the rest is dictated by laws often passed before i was born. that's what i call a sucky choice.

[bread_and_roses]

79. And I hate swatting flies with a rogue elephant amok in the room

you are pulling a typical right-wing stunt by arguing over some picky splinter while ignoring the forest. So this graph or that does not give the whole picture - is there any arguement that in absolute terms we spend more on the military than almost the entire rest of the world combined? While our infant mortality and general health care are the worst in the First World, our infrastructure is rotting away, our prisons are stuffed to the rafters, homeless families live in cars, and entire sections of our inner cities rival war-torn African Countries in living conditions?

And you may want to spend your political time and $$ re-authorizing SS, medicare, and education every year, I don't.

[AliceWonderland]

69. That's quite a visual... n/t

[mmonk]

68. We have over 700 bases worldwide and spend more on

the military than the rest of the world combined. How much bigger do we need to be?

[bread_and_roses]

74. And we're doing such a good job with hearts and minds there killing civilians

too, aren't we? Look at our military budget compared to the rest of the WORLD's and tell me we need more money? I don't think so.

[bbgrunt]

3. this would be preferable to continued privatization and contracting out.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. The privatization and contracting out isn't because the military doesn't get enough money.

It's because it's an all new way to rip off the taxpayer and funnel cash to cronies.

[RufusTFirefly]

6. Woo hoo! Damn the poor people! Let's spend even more!!!

The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty largest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second.

...

However, in terms of per capita spending, the U.S. ranks third behind Israel and Singapore. It is also number 26 in terms of military spending per dollar GDP.

Source

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[JVS]

7. Fuck that bullshit

[Colobo]

9. Sadly, the world is not a place where people sing Kum-ba-ya

while holding hands. The world is a dangerous place, and our Army needs to be ready.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Yeah, if the world was a place where people sing Kum-By-Ya

for sure we wouldn't need to spend more than every other nation COMBINED on "defense". For sure we wouldn't need a half trillion a year in outlays to the M/I complex. But we do. Because, as you say, the world is not a place where people "sing Kum-by-ya".

But the world is ALSO not a place where folks financially attached to very lucrative, self-perpetuating, ever-escalating government funded gravy trains give them up just for shits and giggles. Unfortunately.

Hey- for $500 Billion a year, do you think maybe we could PAY the rest of the planet to hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya?

[slowry]

27. Ready to invade more places for no good reason, and foment civil wars? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Our overstuffed military is what makes it a dangerous place.

[tkmorris]

40. Oh what nonsense.

I don't think Canada is in imminent danger of invasion, do you? Tell me again what they spend on their national defense?

[Selatius]

47. It would be ready if folks like Dick Cheney didn't divert the money away from troops to Halliburton

Nevermind all the other dicks in the Pentagon ready to divert the money away from soldier training, body armor, weapons, etc.

[RestoreGore]

56. maybe if we didn't go around making so many enemies...

We wouldn't need trillions of dollars to defend ourselves while children in this coountry starve. There is more to securing peace than showing force.

[ginnyinWI]

10. we need a larger military

I'm no hawk, but we need enough troops so that each one doesn't have to do the work of two of them. It's that simple. I don't think the National Guard has any business going overseas--we need them to guard the nation (Like after hurricanes and tornadoes!)

Kerry advocated this back in 2004. But he stressed, "not for Iraq!". We need them for overall security--more as a deterrent than an actual fighting force.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Exactly--look at our poor Guard. Look at our reliance on Blackwater--

we don't have enough Army to fight our wars without a lot of help as it is, and retention/recruitment is definitely something that needs to be boosted. I am also not opposed to technology and weapons advancement. Peace through strength might be a Freeper concept, but it's one of the few I believe in.

[Common Sense Party]

16. I don't think it's a FReeper concept.

Most of the time, it's a common sense concept.

"Peace through wimpiness" doesn't sound as inspiring, either.

[TwilightGardener]

21. LOL! "Peace through wimpiness". A nation that gets attacked

and says, "Come on guys! Stop it! We mean it! We're going to hit you back with our...health care system..."

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Whereas nothing says "strength" like "we're so piss-in-our-pants-scared of

things that go bump in the night that we mortgaged our grandkids' future to the tune of trillions, endlessly lining the pockets of gleeful fat cat, no-bid contractors"

And what part of these graphs say "wimpiness" to you?





The CURRENT M/I budget is a Half Trillion a YEAR. We spend more than every other nation on the planet COMBINED. Obviously, only wusses and wimps would be so foolish as to short-change their security in such a half-assed, milquetoast fashion. So, pray tell, just how much is "enough"?

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Sure. Health Care has NOTHING to do with security.

At least, until you have to go to the hospital.

Anyway, why were our taxpayer dollars used- and why are they still being used- to pay for all those aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and let's-not-forget-the-massive-arsenal-of nuclear weapons, if we're so wimpy and incapable of "hitting back" after being attacked?

[TwilightGardener]

32. I was just laughing at "peace through wimpiness". And then giving

an example of wimpiness. But I'll play--I'm not too concerned about the defense spending and the military-industrial complex, for one reason--the world relies on us for deterrence and defense--we are the last superpower, and thus we are charged with maintaining a world-wide superior force. We are a rich country, and aside from the moral and military disaster that is Iraq, I trust no other country to take the lead in military might. Shift a large bulk of it to health care and other social programs, and we'll have healthier, well-educated people who might someday run up against a China or some other nation with a better-trained, better-equipped, higher-tech army, and then it's too late to play catch-up--we've then lost our edge. Is there fraud, waste, and abuse in the military/M-IC? Yes. Is there profiteering? Oh, yeah. That needs to be addressed. But those are separate problems from setting goals for how the military should be shaped for future challenges.

[tkmorris]

42. OK

According to US figures China spent about $120 Billion USD on it's military last year (China's officially released figure was closer to $40 Billion USD). So, we could cut our spending IN HALF and still be spending twice as much as they do. I don't think there'd be much danger of them becoming better-trained, equipped, or higher tech than we are in that scenario, do you?

[Selatius]

45. The Pentagon budget for 2007 is 600+ billion a year. It should not be increased in size.

China is one sixth of that. I would never support increasing that amount if the money being allotted to the military today is being fucking wasted on fraud and graft because of people like Dick Cheney and Halliburton.

Not one more dollar to the Pentagon until it can account for why it takes in 600 billion a year but can't account for why not every soldier goes into battle with body armor or up-armored humvees. You can call me a conservative on the issue if you want, but I will not support dumping more taxpayer dollars into a bloated military machine if it can't even guarantee every soldier gets what he or she needs.

[Selatius]

48. Sorry, but the US was never established to be world policeman

The point of the US military is for national defense of the American people. It was not built to fight every damn tyranny on the face of the globe. We are not an empire, nor should we be even though the US government has helped in the raping of dozens of poor nations, nor do we need armies fit for an empire. If you want so much to defend the world, you can go out and fight it for yourself as a mercenary or a freedom fighter like many thousands of volunteer fighters who went to Spain to fight the fascist Franco, but you shouldn't entertain messianic ideas such as that with taxpayer dollars.

The only time the US should mobilize troops for any war is if a nation attacks or invades the US.

[iverglas]

52. it really just isn't an either-or proposition

One gets so tired of the USAmerican "left" spouting the same line as the right.

The point of the US military is for national defense of the American people. It was not built to fight every damn tyranny on the face of the globe.

Yeah ... and amazingly enough, it pretty much has never been used for that. It sure has been used to install and prop up a fair number of 'em, though.

There really is a difference between good government and bad government, and between the things they do with the same tools. And there is a difference between the things that good government might do with its military on the international scene and imperialism. Or maybe you think that the US should not have joined in the effort against Nazism, belatedly though it did do it.

This really just ain't the 18th century any more ...

[Selatius]

60. Gee, last time I checked, the Axis Powers did attack the US at Pearl Harbor.

Reread what I said. The US should not go to war unless it is attacked or invaded. Umm, Pearl Harbor--help me out here. Was that not an attack? Why, yes, I think it was. :eyes:

[iverglas]

61. oh yeah, I forgot

I was thinking that the US joined the war effort out of solidarity with invaded and occupied and brutalized peoples, and of course concern for the whole state of the world in general. Obviously, that had to be wrong. I must have been thinking of, oh, Canada.

You might want to consider that there really are uses for militaries beyond that go to war (only if) attacked or invaded stuff. Our Canadian military, until our latest right-wing governments got on the job, was used for peacekeeping and even a wee bit of protection. We like that. We may have an unjustifiably rosy view of ourselves these days, but we still like the idea of keeping peace and protecting vulnerable populations. The members of our military do, too.

In the meantime, they come in very handy when Toronto gets snowed on or ice storms bring down all the hydro lines in the eastern part of the continent.

But anyhow, so much for the perennial line about Canada having no military and relying on the US for defence, eh? Fat lot of good you'll be if the attack on your ally comes over the Pole. That's not your department. Check.

[Selatius]

62. Well, you can always go asking the English Crown for help if you get attacked.

Are you not a Commonwealth state?

[iverglas]

63. lordy lordy lordy

One doesn't know where to begin, so one doesn't.

You have noticed -- you have, please tell me you have -- that this is the 21st century, eh?

[Selatius]

65. Well, with Bush, I couldn't tell, since he apparently operates like it's 1507 instead of 2007.

But again, to be more serious, I doubt the Russians would've launched an attack across the pole, since they know fully well how many nukes are still on the North American continent.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. You still haven't answered the question. How much is enough?

Like I said. We spend more than every other nation. Not more than every other nation separately, more than every other nation COMBINED. $500 Billion a year. (Or is it $600, now?) ... Apparently, that's not enough, and to suggest otherwise is to advocate the dreaded "peace through wimpiness", some kind of ridiculous ad hominem bullshit that I've never seen articulated except as a caricature by right wing AM Radio types.

So how much is enough? If they can't do it on Half a Trillion a year, how much do they need?

And it's refreshing, I'm sure, to believe that waste and fraud are "separate issues" - except when we're talking about increasing the already substantial debt load that OUR KIDS are going to have to carry to pay for "maintaining our edge", I think it is PERFECTLY Reasonable to get some accountability for the money the military ALREADY GETS before we start throwing them MORE.

Yeah, I know, we're so nutty over here on the left, with our far-out, wacky ideas. :eyes:

[dave_p]

80. Bloated armies don't offer an edge

The world does not "rely on us for deterrence and defense". US allies may, but most countries are on their own. The US is charged by no-one but itself with maintaining a "world-wide superior force" - that was the PNAC vision. Iraq is the reason why military might is unhelpful without a commitment to genuine global cooperation. So long as the US considers itself entitled to dominate the world, you can guarantee it'll cone up against a rival with different ideas - all the more reason to prioritize multilateral appproaches rather than militarist fantasies of "global battlespace dominance". Investment in education, opportunity and innovation is a far better guarantee of a future US edge than bloated military spending on a force that can't even maintain order in territory it's captured.

[iverglas]

53. er, what's this "our wars"?

I'm just a foreigner, but I was under the impression that DU members didn't regard the invasion and occupation of Iraq, f'r instance, as one of those "our wars".

Did you have some other wars in mind maybe?

[bread_and_roses]

77. Maybe we should fight fewer wars, then, eh? They don't seem to be working out

so well, anyway. And I havn't noticed any Nation-States attacking us lately, have you? And the anti-terrorism success seem to come - as predicted - from police work, not rolling tanks....

Of course, as we keep rampaging around the world killing small children and leaving cluster bombs instead of candy bars in our wake...yeah, lets have more of that!

[Telly Savalas]

70. Then bring the National Guard home.

Why do we need a larger military to do that?

[and-justice-for-all]

22. Its one thing to want to beable to defend yourself..

...If provoked in to military combat. Its another thing to increase military spending and build up to engage in more Wars that you yourself initiate. Our military size is just fine if we didn't send them off to fight in bullshit Warmongering.

I'm Anti-War and Anti-Illegal invasion and occupation!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Real "anti-warriors" aren't they? The Pentagon and their corporate pals are happy.

If the Republicans win - more money and troops for "defense".

If the Democrats win - more money and troops for "defense".

Gotta keep those campaign contributions flowing from the "defense" industry.

[napi21]

51. Rummy's ideas have come home to roost!

Shrub, Cheney & Rummy have destroyed our military. We are now enlisting HS dropouts, ignoring criminal records and many other restrictions that used to exist.

I hate wars as uch as you do, but to believe the US is never going to get into any conflicts in the future is just dumb. Maybe Darfur, Somalia, or the hundreds of other injustices around the world, but it will happen. We have drawn the troop level to unacceptable. NO soldier should have to serve more than ONE term in Iraq or Afghan, but they're having to send some 3 & 4 times because there just aren't enough troops!

Take a look at our history and learn from it!

It's a different argument to say we should stay the hell out of other people's problems, and maybe we should, but the way we've been operating this Country for MANY years, we NEED more people in our military and Clinton, Obama & Biden are right.

[wuushew]

59. kick

:kick:

[mmonk]

64. And ironically,

DK and Richardson are the two campaigns I'm contributing to presently. Well what do you know?

[illinoisprogressive]

66. Obama does to build our troops back up to pre war levels.

[natrat]

67. beside kucinich and gore these others are just run of the mill repub lite

[and-justice-for-all]

71. Kick

[alarimer]

73. Fuck these warmongers

Trying to act all macho militaristic so the Republican nominee does not call them "weak". How damn transparent can you get? Pander to "might is right" crowd. Fascist assholes. We spend too fucking much on the wrong things as it is; enriching the already bloated military is not going to help. Oh, and how many $600 hammers does that buy?

[bread_and_roses]

75. gotta keep those corporate donors happy

they make mega-$$ off military contracts; can't rock their boats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. I know that this will anger the 'bake sales for education' bumper sticker crowd, but

it is apperent that the military needs more resources if it going to have the capability to fight a two front war.