Forums | MacLife

Perpetrated by a geologist. A polygamous geologist.

Oh oh oh. Apologies.

Soldier on!

radarman wrote:

RatFink wrote:

1. 21% is still absolutely smurf crazy
2. Your 21% figure didn't include small details like virtually all the spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the VA.
3. The 1960s was the height of smurf of real wars, cold wars, and paranoia.  It's not exactly one of the shining moments of this country.
4. 21% of outlays is an insane amount of money to spend.

Yeah, cuz defense isn't one of the primary functions of the federal government. Oh wait, it is...

Well I suppose that is it, Grand Ayatollah Radarman has spoken

Much of the military spending these days has virtually nothing to do with national defense.  We have 700 military bases housing over 300,000 soldiers across 50 countries.  It's absolutely insane.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-06-28 10:34 am)

Steyr AUG wrote:

...helping to ensure the USA retains its status as a top economic power along with keeping the rest of the global economy moving freely.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but regardless of if it's true or not it's still not national defense.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-06-28 11:18 am)

Steyr AUG wrote:

The economic contractions of losing secure global trade are certainly well within the realm of national security. Globally deployed forces are hardly an "absolutely insane" proposition.

Ah yes the old National Defense can mean anything I want it to.  Well in that case a healthy population is paramount to a well defended country.  Not only that sickness means lost productivity and is a detriment to the economy and the lack of availability of individuals in times of crisis is a detriment to the security of the country.  Medicine and public healthcare is therefore imperative to National Defense and as such should be treated as such.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-06-28 11:38 am)

RatFink wrote:

Ah yes the old National Defense can mean anything I want it to.

Hardly. The benefits of the .mil protecting US and global trade are quite clearly in support of national defense.

Thankfully the people in power are extremely unlikely to suggest, or get an traction with, a ridiculous plan such as disassembling US power projection.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The military is crucial to sustaining the global economy?

I feel sure they'll find that very amusing in places like China, Japan, Germany, Brazil ...

Just because they're not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. U.S. power projection has been the primary force for global stability in the last 60 years, enabling free trade to blossom like never before.

Farmerkev wrote:

Do we have a week go by without another example in the news?

Every day, my headline reads "Water Still Safe to Drink".

RatFink wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Hardly. The benefits of the .mil protecting US and global trade are quite clearly in support of national defense.

Hardly. The benefits of ^w^wHealth Care protecting US and global trade are quite clearly in support of national defense. 

Seriously, has education in this country really reached this low? One of the few responsibilities directly assigned to the federal government was to establish a defense of the states.

While I tend to agree that keeping soldiers garrisoned around the world, especially in Europe and Japan, is a bit much; I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to hamstring the military. At any time, situations can and do arise that require a military response.

Besides, I can almost guarantee that any monies taken from defense will go to something stupid. It's the way Washington works. If anything, health care would be at the absolute back of the line for that money anyway. Insurance companies and hospitals have far too much power, and aren't about to yield any willingly. You might as well start a unicorn petting zoo.

radarman wrote:

RatFink wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Hardly. The benefits of the .mil protecting US and global trade are quite clearly in support of national defense.

Hardly. The benefits of ^w^wHealth Care protecting US and global trade are quite clearly in support of national defense. 

Seriously, has education in this country really reached this low? One of the few responsibilities directly assigned to the federal government was to establish a defense of the states.

You tell me, you are replying to a post in which I say that the health of the people of a country has just as much importance to the defense of this country in the abstract sense as protecting economic interests abroad that steyr was going on about.  Neither healthcare nor establishment of foreign military bases are directly assigned to anyone.  If you look back most of the founders really didn't want anything to do with a standing army let alone foreign military bases.

radarman wrote:

While I tend to agree that keeping soldiers garrisoned around the world, especially in Europe and Japan, is a bit much; I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to hamstring the military. At any time, situations can and do arise that require a military response.

I don't think anyone is saying do away with all foreign military bases.  But the amount of bases is simply obscene.

radarman wrote:

Besides, I can almost guarantee that any monies taken from defense will go to something stupid. It's the way Washington works. If anything, health care would be at the absolute back of the line for that money anyway. Insurance companies and hospitals have far too much power, and aren't about to yield any willingly. You might as well start a unicorn petting zoo.

And military bases with little value aren't stupid?

The purpose of the US Navy is to protect freighters from pirates?

I hope not, because piracy is pretty widespread.

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The purpose of the US Navy is to protect freighters from pirates?

I hope not, because piracy is pretty widespread.

Actually it's pretty well confined to the HOA and Strait of Malacca.

Plus the South China Sea. Plus the coast of Nigeria, though that's maybe more about an insurgency than actual piracy.