Let SPREAD the WEATLTH for US Defense

Even Clinton, who mostly governed from the center, slashed the military.

And Obama has gone on at length about how he's going to slash the military, and make a new civilian defense force that's even bigger...

No excuses for not knowing what we'd get from an Obama administration.

I have growing concern about this, among dozens of other worries over B. Hussein's lack of experience and his leftist sympathies.

With civilian/consumer engineering and manufacturing dwindling, military research and manufacturing is needed to keep this nation sovereign and independent.

Once we downsize our armed forces, which actually needs to be increased in troops and weapons, especially the Navy (think China), once our domestic engineering and manufacturing are all gone, the USA will be ripe for either being taken over or for a simple, quiet dissolving.

But hey, The Messiah is a cool jazz man. He's gonna bring hope and change baby. You got that right, he will.

Only one thing more expensive than the world's best military - that's having the second best, and losing.

We had the 'Peace Dividend' from Clinton, and survived due basically to the collapse of the USSR and the time needed to reconstitute itself. I'm not sure we would have the same good fortune a second time.

"McCain's top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security. Wait until the generals and the admirals hear that."

http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/06/06/obama-mccain-economy-oped-cx_rl_0609croesus.html?partner=rcp

In the words of the incomparable hero of the extreme right Bill O'Reilly: "what say you"? Lets hear your views on this comment.

Sure JFO. McCain has always said he will stop wasteful defense spending. Since you are a leftist loon, you read it wrong. Surprise. ww

Jesus Willie sometimes you sound like a wacko - it is a QUOTE you fool.

Now, care to comment on the QUOTE?

Actually, Obama has said repeatably he will increase the budget of the Pentagon.

Force size Obama supports Bush administration plans to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops to about 750,000.

McCain has advocated a further increase in Army and Marine troop strength to 900,000.

Budgets McCain has indicated support of proposals by the military, some think tanks and the defense industry to boost defense spending from the current level of about 3.6 percent of GPD to 4 percent. That would add about $50 billion to the base defense budget for 2009.

Obama has neither outlined more than broad budget positions nor advocated spending cuts. He has indicated that he would bring most U.S. combat forces home from Iraq sooner and save billions of dollars that could be used for other purposes.

The fact that we are spending already what the entire rest of the world spends on their defense programs seems to be lost on Steve Schippert. That`s not enough for Schippert. It would be well to heed Ike`s 'warning, but I guess he would be considered "un -American'in today`s political climate.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I wonder what Colin Powell would say about all this. Did anyone hear Rush's response to Powell's endorsement? Or better yet, did anyone SEE Rush's response? He was almost speechless. His hands were in the air, and he just repeated in an exasperated voice, "IT WAS ALL ABOUT RACE. IT WAS ALL ABOUT RACE"...

What a f**king idiot Rush is...

It's pretty funny actually. If you sit and watch Powell give the endorsement, he speaks intelligently and he brings up a variety of good reasons for his choice...

...and the only thing Rush can say, along with most extremist conservative folks, is that Powell wants Obama because he's black.

Why then did Powell give 2,300 dollars to McCain earlier in his campaign?

Maybe Powell regrets giving money to a campaign that is becoming just as crude and idiotic as people like Rush.

We were at 3.0 of GDP for Military spending in 2000 and now we are at 3.7 while fighting on two fronts not to mention normal military operations and special operations a .7% increase is horrible.
From 1959 to 1972 spending was at a high of 10% to low of 7.6% while engaged in Vietnam.
So going to 4% is small leap, I would like to see true Military spending increase to 5% (no pork in any of the bills) and other spending reduced.

Personally, I wish we still had a military-industrial complex, we'd at least have more heavy industry in this nation. But since most Barry Hussein cultists are limp-wristed liberals and assorted girly-men, we are facing the TRUE COMPLEX: The government-media complex.

When over 80% of all so called "journalists" are self-identifying "liberals" or "democrats", the public is ill served by their biased reporting and commentating.

The mooslims will be dancing in the streets on the Gaza Strip if and when Barry Hussein wins....those stupid American "progressives". ha, ha, ha....

Hey Hey JFO (Just F&^king Obonoxious) you are fool for sideing with that lowlife 1/2 breed "buddy" of yours. All you lefties do is "cut and paste"

Let's look closely at missile defense. Since the 1980's era Reagan proposed STAR WARS there has been $100 billion dollars spent to develop some form of missile defenses system. So far only 10 operational missile interceptors have been deployed, all 10 in Alaska. However it takes at least two interceptors to stand a good chance of successfully shooting down just one solid rocket fuel based incoming missile, so at a best case scenario, the U.S has the potential to shoot down just 5 incoming missiles from some hostile military.

Russia has the largest the force of nuclear warheads outside of the U.S., with at least 5,518 operational nuclear warheads and as many as 8,000 can could be activated. Military scientists believe that a force of 16,000 space based missile interceptors would be required to deter most missiles from such a large force. However, not a single space based interceptor exists. The technology isn't there. And the Space Shuttle program is far less reliable than either the Russian or even Chinese space programs right now, with a danger and failure rate many times the risk potential for their programs.

Another problem is who wants 16,000 space weapons orbiting around the earth. What if every nuclear nation wants to put thousands of weapons in space? What would space be like over the earth? Something like a congested freeway with thousands of space weapons in orbit. It's not a reasonable path to go down to weaponize space.

In short, the U.S. is in no financial or military technology or space vehicle reliability position to deter a large nuclear warhead force now or for many years into the near future. The only real safe option is constructive relations with nuclear rivals around the world because the U.S. cannot survive a war from a large nuclear force at this time.

The $100 billion spent to develop just 10 operational missile interceptors could have funded many schools, police offices, fire departments, provided health care, given senior citizens tax breaks, etc. So far this dream of missile defense has been an expensive nightmare for the American taxpayer and one of the biggest Republican backed wastes of money ever. A handful of big defense contractors have gotten very wealthy by producing only 10 operational missile interceptors for the $100 billion spent so far. That makes the $700 billion dollar bailout of the economy look pretty good by comparison because at least it will benefit millions of Americans by comparison.

Paul Hooson

You don't get it.

Try to cut one job from the existing military industrial complex and some Congress Critter will go howling mad, including both Democrats and Republicans. Large scale military expenditures are a form of welfare. Tens of thousands of jobs are on the line, not the least of which are the jobs of the Congress Critters representing districts which have large scale employment for defense.

Look it up to see who represents the bulk of those districts. Wanna guess who. Ever wonder why Johnson Space Center is located in Texas? I will give you a clue, it wasn't because of Lyndon. Try another Democrat.

There is a difference between overall Republican and overall Democrat views towards defense however. Republicans are generally interested in the ability to PROJECT that power, while Democrats are mostly worried about defending military industrial complexes in locations that vote Democratic.

Since the 60's, Americans have been sold a phony story about how the real world works. And tons of people have bought into the fiction because it makes them feel important.

What we DO need is better directed defense expenditures. For example, private industry developed the drones and more or less forced the military to use them. The problem with small scale and better directed military expenditures is that Congress isn't interested, and that includes your favorite party.

Look at what they do Paul, not what they say.

One other point and I will shut up (stop cheering).

Most effective military expenditures these days is directed at force multipliers. This means things that go bump in the night, allowing our trained forces to kill more of them they can kill of ours, making the ratio as high as possible for our side. This is why we have lost a bit over 4,000 KIA in Iraw against tens of thousands of the loons. And the more we kill over there, the fewer there are to figure out that a mall is a neat place to die.

Yea, I have one other thing to say besides the bad spelling in my last post apology.

There was a military industrial complex outside Mobile Alabama at one point in time. It had fantastic runways, huge warehouses, a great port, a trained workforce and you name it up to and including first class railroad access. And it was in great shape. It had everything any military would want to support logistics and supply.

Lyndon Baines Johnson shut it down because that area voted Republican in an election.

First, JFO:

Good point on the Forbes article regarding McCain's advisor's apparent discussion of defense cuts. yet, at the same time, do you truly believe that a president McCain would slash defense in a manner as Obama has suggested, even if the advisor's attributed sentiments are taken at face value? If so, then you have never served a day in your life in the military under a democratic administration.

Second, Mr. Hooson:

If missile defense is such an utter waste and failure, then perhaps you (or Joe Biden for that matter) can explain why Russia has been unglued to the point of coming dangerously close to threatening war over our deployment of missile defense in the Czech Republic.

Hey Steve, can I give Hooson a hint, pretty please, or would that be cheating.

*grin*

"Like Missile Defense. After all, there's no need for it after he negotiates peace in our time, right?" -- Steve

ObamaMessiah is no Ronald Raygun; he's not going to be into Star Wars. Peace, baby, peace!

****************************************
Just can't wait for all the big news on Caribou Barbie? Go to www.cariboubarbie.com

Jerry~

Powell said this last month.

"The election of an African-American president "would be electrifying," Powell told a George Washington University audience, "but at the same time [I have to] make a judgment here on which would be best for America."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/powell-still-undecided-says-obama-win-would-be-electrifying/

If it were not about race, he wouldn't have made such a statement. There is no getting around it. This election is also about race. Why Rush made such a big deal out of it, I don't know.

The biggest problem is the expansion of government at the hands of the guy who, via petition, eliminated his competition. He has almost succeeded in doing the same thing with ACORN, and for the life of me, I still don't understand why his supporters don't see the problem with this magnified strategy. The more we try to syphon out the corruption in the government, the more Obama wants to expand it.

Why? Because the ends justify the means.

Even Fox's and NPR's resident liberal(and black man in case you've never seen him) said,"Of course it's about race."
If just one nuclear missile from a rogue country gets through and hits a large American city you would be looking at least at 100,000 lives in the initial attack and thousands in the days after the attack. Financially the cost would make the "bail out" look like chump change. I think the dollars spent on missile defense are well worth it.
An once of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

"Why? Because the ends justify the means."

Steve, if you're talking to me, you mean the "imagined" means to an end?

I like to refer to it as the Failout.
Bush is really trying to decapitate himself with his 2nd term isn't he?

Yeah, that makes sense...

Funny thing, that. The only expense explicitly mandated to the federal government by the Constitution that the states cannot be appropriated is the national defense. Yet, the United States Military is the one solitary area Barack Obama Jimmy Carter has explicitly named as target for cuts

Fixed.

Looks like Senator Zero will bring the troops home- damn the consequences- declare a 'peace dividend' (remember that one? Thanks, Bill!) and start spreading that wealth around.

"We can't afford new vehicles for the troops, but look at the shiny new windmills everywhere!"

Yeah.

It's comin', people.

With the nation's federal deficit in the $400 to $500 billion dollar range due to the fiscal irresponsibility of the "borrow-and-spend" conservatives, SOMETHING HAS TO BE CUT!!! May as well be the military, its nukes and fancy jets, ships, and other toys no longer needed.

The Cold War is over, conservatives, and like the last 2 Dem presidents, Obama has no intention of getting us into a war.

Obama has no intention of getting us into a war.

"May as well be the military, its nukes and fancy jets, ships, and other toys no longer needed."

Not now. But it'll cost a hell of a lot more if it's needed in the future, and it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Or do you think something like massive numbers of an F-22-style fighter or C-17 cargo aircraft, C-130s or various ships, aircraft carriers or nuclear subs can be built quickly and cheaply once we shut down the assembly lines and stop training workers on how to build them?

I'm thinking we need to cut back a lot of other things. How much would we save if we eliminated the IRS and went to the Fair Tax?

Besides - what's the problem with money, anyway? Hasn't this last month proved that when we need it, it'll appear in trillion-dollar chunks?

Obama is a Socialist! The constitution maintains that the federal government provide protection to the value of our currency, open amd free commerce and national defense. It can be argued the exact nature of the term "national defense"; whether that includes maintaining over 300 bases worldwide, our foreign aid programs or taking out dictators unpopular to our way of thinking under a loose understanding of the definition of protection. The United States is effectively broke and printing money to maintain the way we're going now inflates and eventually debases the currency. It cannot be maintained. Now the only way to satisfy protecting the value our currency, support free trade and commerce and maintain a strong military is to get our budget in order! I think it obvious that we can certainly and arguably do a better job of that by concentrating our military truly on our protection versus maintaining all of the aid and presence and costs we're currently expending. MIke

Obama has no intention of getting us into a war.Unfortunately, our enemies have exactly that intention for us. Don't believe me? Ask Joe Biden.

Steve, you raise an important point about Russia's paranoid views on border security and how it impacted the invasion of Georgia. This Russian view has been rooted in many years of aggression against their nation that has left many millions of Russian dead.

During WWII, in June 1941, the German Wehrmacht invaded Russia with a force of 3 million German and Axis troops including more than 600,000 military vehicles and 625,000 horses. Because of the paranoid political purges of Red Army military leadership by Stalin, the Red Army force of 2 million troops and 10,000 tanks suffered heavy losses and soon the Germans threatened the main city of Leningrad, leading to a siege that lasted for months, but eventually resulted in the defeat of the German invaders and a Red Army push towards Berlin by 1945.

After WWII, during the Truman Administration and beyond until the first Bush Administration there was a siege mentality in the old Soviet Union to protect against NATO and the West and defend their empire. But it was during 1962 when tensions hit a real crisis level. During the Truman Administration the U.S. spearheaded a successful effort to keep Communism out of both Turkey and Greece, and both ended yup playing an important role for later U.S. relations with the Soviet Union.

During 1962, the U.S. had deployed some nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. This border tension resulted in the Soviets attempting to use Cuba as a base for nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S. and the Cuban missile crisis. Robert Kennedy was assigned the task by JFK to work out a delinked border security agreement with the Soviets to remove the U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets not deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba. That standard of improved border security for both nations seemed to hold until just this year in which the Bush Administration wanted to rewrite this long-standing policy by deployment of missiles anywhere near Russia. It also helped to create the East-West tensions over Georgia.

The fact of the matter is that it is a dangerous path to go down by militarism of the borders of Russia and the U.S. or space. Placing missiles of any type near the borders of Russia will only mean Russian missiles eventually placed very close to American shores, either in Venezuela or Cuba, and other threats. The U.S. doesn't need to invite a Russian missile threat only 90 miles from the American shores in Florida. And the world doesn't need thousands of orbiting space weapons platforms either.

I'm more than happy to exchange views on foreign policy, history or military affairs any time with you Steve. These are some of my favorite topics.

They are spending money on national defense to control the population when we realized we've been "had" by the federal banks, and they issue a police/military state. people educate yourselves on how they are already preparing!

JZ, I'll gladly sign up for Obama's socialized health care plan if it will get you into treatment.