How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

[slim 1,533]

It's not a question of doing their jobs adequately. The issue has to do with the defense contracts, many of which are earmarked onto other bills. As the article indicated, McCain and Rumsfeld have addressed the issue.

Then nobody missed it.

Are you asking why people aren't mad the defense dept. is "allowed" to lose 3 trillion yet health and welfare don't even get 1 trillion?

[Heracles 417]

It's not a question of doing their jobs adequately. The issue has to do with the defense contracts, many of which are earmarked onto other bills. As the article indicated, McCain and Rumsfeld have addressed the issue.

Then nobody missed it.

Are you asking why people aren't mad the defense dept. is "allowed" to lose 3 trillion yet health and welfare don't even get 1 trillion?

Actually that is a good question.

[SuperDuper! 230]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

To be fair, China does have some now. But the bigger concern is what they are doing to counteract ours.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/072...ary_singer.aspx

Remember, the first thing the president asks, when a major incident or attack breaks out around the world is, "WHERE ARE MY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?"

Edited November 28, 2009 by Hopp

[slim 1,533]

Actually that is a good question.

And it's easily answered by saying - "Because nobody cares." Defense does it's job. Health and welfare, not so much. People in America have no problem wasting money on something that works. We just don't like wasting money on things that are ineffective.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

To be fair, China does have some now. But the bigger concern is what they are doing to counteract ours.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/072...ary_singer.aspx

Remember, the first thing the president asks, when a major incident or attack breaks out around the world is, "WHERE ARE MY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?"

current answer - 0 operational. the one in the article still needs work.

[SuperDuper! 230]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

To be fair, China does have some now. But the bigger concern is what they are doing to counteract ours.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/072...ary_singer.aspx

Remember, the first thing the president asks, when a major incident or attack breaks out around the world is, "WHERE ARE MY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?"

current answer - 0 operational. the one in the article still needs work.

Wow, Charles is right again! And I thought I had the facts on MY side. It will take me a week to rebuild my self esteem!

[slim 1,533]

There are certain people you don't "debate" with here on VJ... Charles! is one of them! Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

To be fair, China does have some now. But the bigger concern is what they are doing to counteract ours.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/072...ary_singer.aspx

Remember, the first thing the president asks, when a major incident or attack breaks out around the world is, "WHERE ARE MY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?"

current answer - 0 operational. the one in the article still needs work.

Wow, Charles is right again! And I thought I had the facts on MY side. It will take me a week to rebuild my self esteem!

A few weeks in Australia should cure that.

[SuperDuper! 230]

A few weeks in Australia should cure that.

I'll take the Phils, first, then consider Aussie Land as a side trip.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Hopp

[slim 1,533]

I'll take the Phils, first, then consider Aussie Land as a side trip.

Can't say I blame you!

[NickD 203]

"By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

remind me - how many aircraft carriers do those 3 have again?

To be fair, China does have some now. But the bigger concern is what they are doing to counteract ours.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/072...ary_singer.aspx

Remember, the first thing the president asks, when a major incident or attack breaks out around the world is, "WHERE ARE MY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS?"

Replacements for those huge but worthless battleships before WW II, would blow the hell out an island, but still thousands of foot soldiers left that had to be taken out one at a time. Bombing London or Berlin only served to really piss people off, and even the atomic bomb did not stop the Japanese, what really stopped them was Stalin declared war on Japan just days before they surrendered, would rather surrender to us than the Soviets.

All the wars we had since WW II were never declared by congress, we were supporting countries that had very unstable governments, really no one to deal with, never fought an enemy in uniform, and after we finally pulled out, didn't change a god damned thing. Same old sh!t is going on right now, getting sick of it and have to worry about my own kids and grandkids getting killed for nothing.

[Pooky 3,930]

Replacements for those huge but worthless battleships before WW II, would blow the hell out an island, but still thousands of foot soldiers left that had to be taken out one at a time. Bombing London or Berlin only served to really piss people off, and even the atomic bomb did not stop the Japanese, what really stopped them was Stalin declared war on Japan just days before they surrendered, would rather surrender to us than the Soviets.

Battleships were still a good idea in 1939. In 1940, when carrier based biplanes of the Fleet Air Arm wrecked the Italian Fleet at Taranto (which Admiral Yamamoto admired and copied with better-known results at Pearl Harbour), battleships suddenly looked vulnerable. Carriers had the power to project force hundreds of miles, while battleships did not. Game over for battleships.

Bombing London was a mistake the very first time the Luftwaffe did it (by accident). Churchill then goaded Hitler and Goering into repeated attacks by bombing Berlin and really annoying them. Making the Germans switched saved the RAF, bought it time and secured the outcome of the Battle of Britain. Bombing Berlin later in the war was to damage morale more than anything. The results there are difficult to determine, but it is telling that the RAF never issued a campaign medal for the crews of Bomber Command.

Depending on whose story you believe, the A-Bombs either sealed the Japanese surrender, persuaded them to surrender to the Americans rather than the Russians (who still have the Kurile Islands) or, were completely unnecessary, as the Japanese Emperor had wanted to surrender since January 1945.

As for carriers today, in 1982, the Argentine Navy had a fixed-wing carrier, which, if it had put to sea, may have swung the outcome of the Falklands War. It never set sail. Why? Because the sinking of the cruiser the General Belgrano was an example to the Argentine Navy that whatever ships put to sea would never return home, as the Royal Navy's nuclear hunter-killer submarines could sink them with impunity. Carriers are only worth it if you control the sea and have enough anti-submarine capability, and enough submarines of your own, to protect them. Otherwise, they're just so much scrap metal waiting to become an artificial reef on the sea-bed. There aren't many navies in the world that can do that.

[NickD 203]

Replacements for those huge but worthless battleships before WW II, would blow the hell out an island, but still thousands of foot soldiers left that had to be taken out one at a time. Bombing London or Berlin only served to really piss people off, and even the atomic bomb did not stop the Japanese, what really stopped them was Stalin declared war on Japan just days before they surrendered, would rather surrender to us than the Soviets.

Battleships were still a good idea in 1939. In 1940, when carrier based biplanes of the Fleet Air Arm wrecked the Italian Fleet at Taranto (which Admiral Yamamoto admired and copied with better-known results at Pearl Harbour), battleships suddenly looked vulnerable. Carriers had the power to project force hundreds of miles, while battleships did not. Game over for battleships.

Bombing London was a mistake the very first time the Luftwaffe did it (by accident). Churchill then goaded Hitler and Goering into repeated attacks by bombing Berlin and really annoying them. Making the Germans switched saved the RAF, bought it time and secured the outcome of the Battle of Britain. Bombing Berlin later in the war was to damage morale more than anything. The results there are difficult to determine, but it is telling that the RAF never issued a campaign medal for the crews of Bomber Command.

Depending on whose story you believe, the A-Bombs either sealed the Japanese surrender, persuaded them to surrender to the Americans rather than the Russians (who still have the Kurile Islands) or, were completely unnecessary, as the Japanese Emperor had wanted to surrender since January 1945.

As for carriers today, in 1982, the Argentine Navy had a fixed-wing carrier, which, if it had put to sea, may have swung the outcome of the Falklands War. It never set sail. Why? Because the sinking of the cruiser the General Belgrano was an example to the Argentine Navy that whatever ships put to sea would never return home, as the Royal Navy's nuclear hunter-killer submarines could sink them with impunity. Carriers are only worth it if you control the sea and have enough anti-submarine capability, and enough submarines of your own, to protect them. Otherwise, they're just so much scrap metal waiting to become an artificial reef on the sea-bed. There aren't many navies in the world that can do that.

Just on the slim possibility at looking at other nations, our huge military can be viewed as a threat to them that could result in even more wars. With the advent of the internet, finally have the opportunity to discuss some of these issues with other people. The vast majority of us are hard working people trying to earn an income to support and feed our families. Another issue is the ####### that Hollywood is putting out really giving the world a very bad impression of Americans.

Granted, 2000 people were killed during the bombing or Pearl Harbor and perhaps well justified because we were dealing with four nations that had crazy leaders, that includes Stalin that ended up in a forty year cold war. And another 3,000 in 9/11, but was this justification to invade Iraq that lead into hundreds of thousands of deaths. Still the ongoing debate as to whether our presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan is creating even more terrorists.

Our ongoing military strength is also a huge burden upon us and do we really enjoy freedom in this country because of that? You damn well better pay your taxes to support this whether you like it or not. Reflecting on my own life, from the time I was born with day care till I was 25 years of age, my life was completely dictated by the state including military service, was so naive at the time, didn't even know how to make my own decisions, never was given the opportunity.

[Scott & Lai 12]

[*]The 2010 Pentagon budget means "every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year," reports the Cato Institute. "By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China's per capita spending is less than $100."

For context, Japan and Germany haven't needed to spend so much on defense, since we have bee protecting them since the end of WWII. And there are around 1.3 billion Chinese, so China's not exactly puny military budget gets spread over a far larger tax base, greatly reducing the burden on any one taxpayer.

Regarding wasteful spending in our defense dept., check out The Pentagon Wars

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Why hasn't congress de-funded the war in Iraq? The only thing that stopped them before was Bush's veto. Obama would approve that bill to de-fund our troops, let's have it! Stop wasteful defense spending and end this war NOW!

Why is Obama expanding defense spending by sending more troops to war?

Why have the war protests stopped in Burlington? They were there every day since 2003 until Obama's inaugeration! C'mon, don't give up now!