PDA

View Full Version : The Military Pays the Price for Obama’s Agenda (He Only Cuts Constitutional Spending)




TheRightsWriter.com
08-10-2010, 01:42 PM
by Ben Johnson

As Barack Obama surrounds himself with smiling teachers grateful he talked vacationing Congressmen into squeezing taxpayers for another multi-billion dollar bailout, Americans should envision another scene: the U.S. soldiers who are paying the price for Obama’s economic agenda.

Last night, on the eve of today’s vote, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new set of “reforms” to the defense budget that “will ensure that our nation is…more fiscally responsible.” (Insert laugh track.) Gates said (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-08-10-gates10_ST_N.htm) he will close the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, cut “50 generals and admirals and 150 top civilians over the next two years,” and eliminate approximately one-third of current spending on civilian contractors. The secretary admitted a “substantial number” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/09/gates-cut-major-military-command-norfolk-officials-say/) of the 2,800 military and civilian positions will be liquidated, guessing the loss will save $240 million.

Welcome to the Obama recovery (http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/08/10/cartoon-summer-of-recovery/).

While the bailouts proceed apace, next year’s defense budget (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-04-01-mentors_N.htm) barely holds pace with inflation. Obama admitted (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-gates-is-reforming-the-way-the-pentagon-does-business/1?csp=34) in Washingtonese that he targeted the DoD for reduction....

Read the whole article (http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/08/10/the-military-pays-the-price-for-obama%e2%80%99s-agenda/).

oyarde
08-10-2010, 02:28 PM
Will be the only spending cut by any of the new democratic party for eternity.

Acala
08-10-2010, 02:32 PM
Wait! You mean our defense budget will only by nine times larger than the nearest competitor?!?!?!?! OOHHHHHH NOOOOOOOO!!!! We are doomed!!!

What a joke.

Vessol
08-10-2010, 03:17 PM
Lol at the Right trying to portray Obama as anti-war.

Acala
08-10-2010, 04:16 PM
Lol at the Right trying to portray Obama as anti-war.

Yup. They need to keep BOTH the Republibots and the Demobots thinking the Democrats are actually anti-war. Suckas!

libertarian4321
08-10-2010, 05:54 PM
Anyone who thinks our military is suffering from lack of funding just isn't paying attention.

We spend more on our military than all the other nations in the world combined, and that is utter insanity.

Our military expenditures are inefficient and often ill advised, but we sure aren't "shorting" the military when it comes to funding.

Rather than increasing the military budget to the point where it "barely keeps pace with inflation," we should massively cut our military expenditures,

- a veteran

Wolfgang Bohringer
08-11-2010, 08:43 AM
He Only Cuts Constitutional Spending

Read Article I Section 8 sometime. It says that Congress shall only raise armies in extreme emergencies. And then any appropriations are to be temporary for a term not longer than 2 years.

Read your state constitution. Most--such as Virginia's say that standing armies are dangerous to liberty.

Notice the authors of the original federal and state constitutions didn't say that giving money to youth propaganda camp administrators was dangerous to liberty (not that it isn't). They only had experience with giving the government money to raise armies. So the permanent appropriations to the welfare queens and sadists that comprise the US military are more unconstitutional than even the appropriations to left wing welfare queens.

Clairvoyant
08-11-2010, 08:49 AM
lol because the military is self-funded right?

Taxpayers pay for all agendas.

Pericles
08-11-2010, 09:07 AM
Anyone who thinks our military is suffering from lack of funding just isn't paying attention.

We spend more on our military than all the other nations in the world combined, and that is utter insanity.

Our military expenditures are inefficient and often ill advised, but we sure aren't "shorting" the military when it comes to funding.

Rather than increasing the military budget to the point where it "barely keeps pace with inflation," we should massively cut our military expenditures,

- a veteran

If we paid draftees the equivalent of $10 a month, could produce rifles for the equivalent of $30, and so on, as in Russia, our budget for the military would be much smaller.

jmdrake
08-11-2010, 09:10 AM
by Ben Johnson

As Barack Obama surrounds himself with smiling teachers grateful he talked vacationing Congressmen into squeezing taxpayers for another multi-billion dollar bailout, Americans should envision another scene: the U.S. soldiers who are paying the price for Obama’s economic agenda.

Last night, on the eve of today’s vote, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced a new set of “reforms” to the defense budget that “will ensure that our nation is…more fiscally responsible.” (Insert laugh track.) Gates said (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-08-10-gates10_ST_N.htm) he will close the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, cut “50 generals and admirals and 150 top civilians over the next two years,” and eliminate approximately one-third of current spending on civilian contractors. The secretary admitted a “substantial number” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/09/gates-cut-major-military-command-norfolk-officials-say/) of the 2,800 military and civilian positions will be liquidated, guessing the loss will save $240 million.

Welcome to the Obama recovery (http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/08/10/cartoon-summer-of-recovery/).

While the bailouts proceed apace, next year’s defense budget (http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-04-01-mentors_N.htm) barely holds pace with inflation. Obama admitted (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-gates-is-reforming-the-way-the-pentagon-does-business/1?csp=34) in Washingtonese that he targeted the DoD for reduction....

Read the whole article (http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/08/10/the-military-pays-the-price-for-obama%e2%80%99s-agenda/).

Ummmm....you realize that Ron Paul came out in favor of deep "defense" cuts too right? Besides our current military structure and posture is hardly constitutional. Where does the constitution authorize pre-emptive wars? Where does the constitution authorized subsidizing the defense spending of Germany, Japan, Israel, the oil producing Arab countries, South Korea and other nations through foreign military basis?

The proper role of the military from the constitution.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

This is the problem we have for being to quick to embrace the johnny come lately "teocons". Ron Paul's message gets diluted by folks who are just in blind opposition to Obama.

Acala
08-11-2010, 10:11 AM
If we paid draftees the equivalent of $10 a month, could produce rifles for the equivalent of $30, and so on, as in Russia, our budget for the military would be much smaller.

If we ended our world empire, mothballed our globe-spanning fleet, limited our standing armed forces to what is needed to defend our borders and provide a nuclear deterrent, and rooted out the corruption we could save many hundreds of billions of dollars and still pay decent money to soldiers and buy good rifles at market value. And be MORE secure than we are now.

Zippyjuan
08-11-2010, 11:45 AM
Aside from Social Security and interest on the debt, the DoD spends more money than all other government programs combined. If you intend to reduce the deficit, this is exactly where you want to start. There and Social Security. Arguing not to cut it because the military is in the Constitution is not a valid argument. You could raise that point only if you were talking about cutting 100% of it which they are not.

Interesting how with so many posts about the government spending too much and being involved in too many wars that when somebody proposes reducing spending on the military that this too gets questioned.

In the proposed 2010 budget, there was $1.36 trillion in discressionary spending and of that $663 was for the Department of Defense. The next highest is the Department of Human Services at a mere $78.7 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-11-2010, 11:52 AM
Aside from Social Security and interest on the debt, the DoD spends more money than all other government programs combined. If you intend to reduce the deficit, this is exactly where you want to start. There and Social Security. Arguing not to cut it because the military is in the Constitution is not a valid argument. You could raise that point only if you were talking about cutting 100% of it which they are not.

Interesting how with so many posts about the government spending too much and being involved in too many wars that when somebody proposes reducing spending on the military that this too gets questioned.

In the proposed 2010 budget, there was $1.36 trillion in discressionary spending and of that $663 was for the Department of Defense. The next highest is the Department of Human Services at a mere $78.7 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Well you know me :p I say cut it all! Military hardware prices are enormously inflated due to Government the same way that college tuition is. It is utter lunacy. Let the mass of people defend themselves, for they are a much better protector of liberty, life, and property! Militias! :D

Acala
08-11-2010, 11:52 AM
Aside from Social Security and interest on the debt, the DoD spends more money than all other government programs combined. If you intend to reduce the deficit, this is exactly where you want to start. There and Social Security. Arguing not to cut it because the military is in the Constitution is not a valid argument. You could raise that point only if you were talking about cutting 100% of it which they are not.

Interesting how with so many posts about the government spending too much and being involved in too many wars that when somebody proposes reducing spending on the military that this too gets questioned.

In the proposed 2010 budget, there was $1.36 trillion in discressionary spending and of that $663 was for the Department of Defense. The next highest is the Department of Human Services at a mere $78.7 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

And this isn't even really a cut. It is nothing. But the anti-Obama folks have up until now found it impossible to fault him for "weakening our defense" since he has jacked UP our foreign aggression, although he has softened the rhetoric. Personally, if I were the resident of one of our foreign colonies, my preference would be for the President to speak more harshly to me but kill me and my family less.

oyarde
08-11-2010, 12:25 PM
Aside from Social Security and interest on the debt, the DoD spends more money than all other government programs combined. If you intend to reduce the deficit, this is exactly where you want to start. There and Social Security. Arguing not to cut it because the military is in the Constitution is not a valid argument. You could raise that point only if you were talking about cutting 100% of it which they are not.

Interesting how with so many posts about the government spending too much and being involved in too many wars that when somebody proposes reducing spending on the military that this too gets questioned.

In the proposed 2010 budget, there was $1.36 trillion in discressionary spending and of that $663 was for the Department of Defense. The next highest is the Department of Human Services at a mere $78.7 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

I am with getting rid of the clearly unconstitutional spending.If the military budget can be cut, fine.It disturbs me that the other stuff is not first on the slate.

Fredom101
08-11-2010, 12:34 PM
Keep cutting until there's nothing left to cut!

Pericles
08-11-2010, 01:18 PM
If we ended our world empire, mothballed our globe-spanning fleet, limited our standing armed forces to what is needed to defend our borders and provide a nuclear deterrent, and rooted out the corruption we could save many hundreds of billions of dollars and still pay decent money to soldiers and buy good rifles at market value. And be MORE secure than we are now.
Not arguing that - just calling attention to the use of irrelevant statistics. How much county X pays for rifles, submarines, or soldiers has no bearing on the cost of those items in the US.

Acala
08-11-2010, 01:43 PM
Not arguing that - just calling attention to the use of irrelevant statistics. How much county X pays for rifles, submarines, or soldiers has no bearing on the cost of those items in the US.

I see your point - it doesn't necessarily give a clear picture of the relative size of the different militaries. But assuming the costs from different countries being compared are converted into dollars, then it DOES say something about how much relative wealth is being poured into the military. In other words, it does say something about how much is being spent but not necessarily anything clear about how much is being purchased. So the Chinese might be getting more bang for their buck. But we are still spending MUCH more.

TheRightsWriter.com
08-11-2010, 04:26 PM
I am with getting rid of the clearly unconstitutional spending.If the military budget can be cut, fine.It disturbs me that the other stuff is not first on the slate.

This was my point -- and my only point -- exactly. There are so many unconstitutional and counterproductive programs to be cut (but which Obama is increasing) that defense should be last on the list.

The key arguments I've read for cutting defense spending are:

Our military is overstretched due to an interventionist foreign policy; and
The Founders opposed a standing army and wanted to rely on minutemen.


If our military is overstretched, then the policy would have to be changed first. Cutting spending while fighting a war is the dumbest (and deadliest) of all policies.

Despite the romantic notion of the minutemen that animates so many, read what George Washington thought of his volunteers -- the ones who deserted him at Valley Forge and on so many other battlefields. He desperately wanted a well trained, permanent force, a standing army. He thought anything less would leave America vulnerable to those who had a more substantial fighting force.

After the nation stops subsidizing abortion around the world, providing unconstitutional services to non-citizens, suing productive citizens for imagined discrimination, and underwriting UN boondoggles, then I don't mind examining the DoD's budget.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-11-2010, 04:30 PM
This was my point -- and my only point -- exactly. There are so many unconstitutional and counterproductive programs to be cut (but which Obama is increasing) that defense should be last on the list.

The key arguments I've read for cutting defense spending are:

Our military is overstretched due to an interventionist foreign policy; and
The Founders opposed a standing army and wanted to rely on minutemen.


If our military is overstretched, then the policy would have to be changed first. Cutting spending while fighting a war is the dumbest (and deadliest) of all policies.

Despite the romantic notion of the minutemen that animates so many, read what George Washington thought of his volunteers -- the ones who deserted him at Valley Forge and on so many other battlefields. He desperately wanted a well trained, permanent force, a standing army. He thought anything less would leave America vulnerable to those who had a more substantial fighting force.

After the nation stops subsidizing abortion around the world, providing unconstitutional services to non-citizens, suing productive citizens for imagined discrimination, and underwriting UN boondoggles, then I don't mind examining the DoD's budget.

Or how about the best reason -- War is the ultimate Big Government program. DoD is the biggest budget item in the Federal Arsenal. It subsidizes hundreds of Corporations that profit solely on imperialism. I could go on and on, but the fact is the DoD is the biggest of the Big Government programs.

There's a reason that Standing Armies are antithetical to a free-society. Once you have one the politicians will find a use for them and their use is always the negation of liberty. So if ye' love liberty, ye' must abhorr standing armies.

TheRightsWriter.com
08-11-2010, 04:51 PM
Or how about the best reason -- War is the ultimate Big Government program. DoD is the biggest budget item in the Federal Arsenal. It subsidizes hundreds of Corporations that profit solely on imperialism. I could go on and on, but the fact is the DoD is the biggest of the Big Government programs.

There's no doubt that "War is the health of the State." That's why wars should be declared by Congress, fought solely in the American interest, and completed as quickly as possible.

Realistically speaking, though, if standing armies are abandoned only by the lovers of liberty, then they will be used by those who hate liberty to crush liberty. If armies had been dissolved, there is no way the nation could have defended herself from a Soviet assault.

And if you believe in following the Founding Fathers, George Washington's attitude on the matter should not be beside the point.

At any rate, let's cut everything else first, then follow the foreign policy above. After that, we can see what level of army is necessary to keep us safe.

Acala
08-11-2010, 04:54 PM
This was my point -- and my only point -- exactly. There are so many unconstitutional and counterproductive programs to be cut (but which Obama is increasing) that defense should be last on the list.

The key arguments I've read for cutting defense spending are:

Our military is overstretched due to an interventionist foreign policy; and
The Founders opposed a standing army and wanted to rely on minutemen.


If our military is overstretched, then the policy would have to be changed first. Cutting spending while fighting a war is the dumbest (and deadliest) of all policies.

Despite the romantic notion of the minutemen that animates so many, read what George Washington thought of his volunteers -- the ones who deserted him at Valley Forge and on so many other battlefields. He desperately wanted a well trained, permanent force, a standing army. He thought anything less would leave America vulnerable to those who had a more substantial fighting force.

After the nation stops subsidizing abortion around the world, providing unconstitutional services to non-citizens, suing productive citizens for imagined discrimination, and underwriting UN boondoggles, then I don't mind examining the DoD's budget.


Defense should be the FIRST on the list because it can be cut by the President unilaterally. President Ron Paul could order an end to the unconstitutional world empire on his first day in office. No other significant decrease in Federal spending could be accompished so easily.

Oh, and it would be nice to stop slaughtering innocent people for a change. We might find fewer people out to destroy us.

Jack Bauer
08-11-2010, 05:02 PM
Or how about the best reason -- War is the ultimate Big Government program

This needs to be turned into a slogan, used on Tshirts, banners, chants, everything possible. Especially at Tea Party rallies.

That should separate the teaocons from liberty lovers and show the blatant hypocrisy of the teaocons to everyone (including a good chunk of teaocons who don't realise it).

Acala
08-11-2010, 05:08 PM
At any rate, let's cut everything else first, then follow the foreign policy above. After that, we can see what level of army is necessary to keep us safe.

Why? It is obvious right now that virtually none of what our armed forces are doing outside our borders is necessary for our safety. Why would we continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars WE DON'T HAVE into a world empire that is not in anyone's interest except the banks, the military contractors, and some corrupt foreign dictators?

TheRightsWriter.com
08-11-2010, 05:28 PM
As I read the Constitution, all spending bills originate with the House of Representatives, not the president.

History proves a sudden withdrawal will invite future attacks by making America look weak. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor believing Americans were too lazy to wage war. Vietnam sent Communism on the march throughout the 1970s. The withdrawal from Beirut (although the correct decision at the time) and the retreat from Somalia encouraged everything al-Qaeda has done since 1993. Osama bin Laden said (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833647/posts) "the weakness of the American soldier...was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia."

The first function of a government is to repulse foreign invasion and civil unrest (which is why even the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus during those times). We have to disengage ourselves without remaining vulnerable. I'm sorry; I'm not convinced the only choices are "empire" or dissolving the standing army and leaving our national defense to the blokes down the block.

Neither did the Founders.

olehounddog
08-11-2010, 05:32 PM
Cut 240 mil then spend 26 bil. Yep, that works. We'll have a balanced budget in no time.

erowe1
08-11-2010, 05:45 PM
Here's a good speech Congressman Hostettler delivered from the House floor about our government's "constitutional spending" on taking over Iraq.

http://www.nothingforthenation.com/floorspeechtext.htm


FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2002)

Hon. John N. Hostettler of Indiana
Floor Statement
Congressional Record

[Page: H7286]

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding me this time.

Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United States or its fielded military forces abroad?''

We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of Florida?''

Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep spiral.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism. It is with their blood, sweat, and tears that they are winning, for

[Page: H7287]

every one of us who will lay our heads down in peace this night, the right to wake up tomorrow, free.

No, Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is ``Will the House of Representatives vote to initiate war on another sovereign nation?''

Article I, Section 8 of the governing document of this Republic, the United States Constitution, gives to Congress the power to provide for the common defense. It follows that Congress's [sic] power to declare war must be in keeping with the notion of providing for the common defense.

Today, a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the Framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that they did not.

As I was preparing these remarks, I was reminded of an entry on my desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads, ``At dawn on this morning, April 19, 1775, some 70 Minutemen were assembled on Lexington's green. All eyes kept returning to where the road from Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the drummer boy to cease his beat, the Minuteman Captain, John Parker, gave his fateful command: `Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.''

``Don't fire unless fired upon.'' It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution.

We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be.

We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. But based on the best of our intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The evidence supporting what might be is tenuous, at best.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a preemptive military strike at this time.

Voting for this resolution not only would set an ominous precedent for using the administration's parameters to justify war against the remaining partners in the ``Axis of Evil,'' but such a vote for preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow.

War should be waged by necessity, and I do not believe that such necessity is at hand at this time. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the resolution to approve force at this time.

Source citation: 107th Congress, 2nd Session, October 8, 2002, Congressional Record, pp. H7286-H7287.

Jack Bauer
08-11-2010, 06:12 PM
History proves a sudden withdrawal will invite future attacks by making America look weak. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor believing Americans were too lazy to wage war.

When in history have our opponents in war attacked us further, "following us home" after we withdrew?



Vietnam sent Communism on the march throughout the 1970s.

You are confusing social revolution with armed invasion. Which Vietnam communist soldier attacked America after we left that shit hole?



The withdrawal from Beirut (although the correct decision at the time) and the retreat from Somalia encouraged everything al-Qaeda has done since 1993. Osama bin Laden said (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833647/posts) "the weakness of the American soldier...was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia."

Seriously? You are taking the propaganda of a nutjob which they use to stir up their base to consolidate support as the truth?

Islamic terrorist outfits have been waging "jihad" much before 911 or even 1993. Go ask someone from India and you will know the history of Islamic terrorism pre-dates even the days the US funded the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Its just that since the 90's the US instead of being a supporter of Islamic jihad (against Soviet Russia) suddenly became a potential target in another theocratic-statist movement. The theocratic-statist movement of the global caliphate has existed sinces centuries. Its just that the techniques have changed and the targets have changed based on global power dynamics.


The first function of a government is to repulse foreign invasion and civil unrest (which is why even the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus during those times).

I do not see any foreign invasion today in the US. So why are we fighting two wars?


We have to disengage ourselves without remaining vulnerable. I'm sorry; I'm not convinced the only choices are "empire" or dissolving the standing army and leaving our national defense to the blokes down the block.

We have the largest army in the world and outspend all other countries militarily combined! How the hell are we vulnerable to foreign invasion?

Are we vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Of course we are. As we (and everyone else) will always be, even under 100% controlled environment. That doesn't justify us fighting wars and building nations for decades and decades.

oyarde
08-11-2010, 06:29 PM
When in history have our opponents in war attacked us further, "following us home" after we withdrew?




You are confusing social revolution with armed invasion. Which Vietnam communist soldier attacked America after we left that shit hole?




Seriously? You are taking the propaganda of a nutjob which they use to stir up their base to consolidate support as the truth?

Islamic terrorist outfits have been waging "jihad" much before 911 or even 1993. Go ask someone from India and you will know the history of Islamic terrorism pre-dates even the days the US funded the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Its just that since the 90's the US instead of being a supporter of Islamic jihad (against Soviet Russia) suddenly became a potential target in another theocratic-statist movement. The theocratic-statist movement of the global caliphate has existed sinces centuries. Its just that the techniques have changed and the targets have changed based on global power dynamics.



I do not see any foreign invasion today in the US. So why are we fighting two wars?



We have the largest army in the world and outspend all other countries militarily combined! How the hell are we vulnerable to foreign invasion?

Are we vulnerable to terrorist attacks? Of course we are. As we (and everyone else) will always be, even under 100% controlled environment. That doesn't justify us fighting wars and building nations for decades and decades.

Without even doing a quick fact check , I will guess Jihad started 6th or 7th century.

Jack Bauer
08-11-2010, 06:49 PM
Without even doing a quick fact check , I will guess Jihad started 6th or 7th century.

BINGO!

Jihad is nothing but a political agenda/tool for the theocratic muslim statists. When they had the dominance in technology and warfare, they waged out right wars against anyone who opposed them. Now that they are no longer dominant in global politics, they use terrorism as a tactic.

The war on terror is as good as a war on pasteurization or a war on calculus. Waging endless wars, against a tactical tool is absolutely stupid.

Acala
08-11-2010, 07:17 PM
As I read the Constitution, all spending bills originate with the House of Representatives, not the president.

Correct. But the President could recall the entire armed forced on his own order, send most of the soldiers home, mothball the fleet, and close bases all on his own. If Congress insisted on appropriating money that could not be spent, I suppose it could. But that would be so idiotic as to be politically impossible. The President can, as a practical matter, unilaterally reduce the defense budget.




History proves a sudden withdrawal will invite future attacks by making America look weak..

Cite a single example



Japan attacked Pearl Harbor believing Americans were too lazy to wage war..

Japan attacked the US for complicated reasons stemming from the US occupation of the Philippines and meddling in China and Southeast Asia. Yes, Japan thought the US would not fight but not because of any "sudden withdrawal". So this does not support your point. Furthermore, Japan was an industrial powerhouse with a highly educated population and a well-honed army. Nobody we are currently fighting has any of these qualities. The idea that Iraq and Afghanistan are going to rise up and invade the US is simply idiotic. Besides, once we quit screwing with them they will have no further reason to attack us.



Vietnam sent Communism on the march throughout the 1970s.

Sent it where? Not in pursuit of us. So again this does not support your point. The Vietnamese NEVER posed a security threat for this country - not before the war and not after our withdrawal.



The withdrawal from Beirut (although the correct decision at the time) and the retreat from Somalia encouraged everything al-Qaeda has done since 1993. Osama bin Laden said (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833647/posts) "the weakness of the American soldier...was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia."

The terrorist attacks on the US are blowback from our relentless meddling in the affairs of other people around the world. Read the 9/11 report. Read the comments of the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. We have been attacked because of our intervention in the Middle East, plain and simple. And it will continue until the day we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and learn to mind out own business.



The first function of a government is to repulse foreign invasion and civil unrest (which is why even the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus during those times). .

Wrong. The first function of government is to protect liberty. But even granting your statement, how are our foreign adventures now related to repulsing invasion? And while you are at it, how has anything we have done in foreign affairs in the last century related to repulsing invasion?


We have to disengage ourselves without remaining vulnerable.

To whom are we vulnerable? A bunch of ignorant, dirt poor goat farmers who don't have so much as a ship, a plane, or an army? That is simply an unsupportable position.


I'm sorry; I'm not convinced the only choices are "empire" or dissolving the standing army and leaving our national defense to the blokes down the block.

You have made a straw man argument. I never said dissolve the standing army or abandon our defenses. I said reduce the army to what is necessary to defend our borders. That is the only use of the military that is Constitutional or prudent. What we are doing around the globe has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting our national defenses.



Neither did the Founders.

The Founders were uniformly against the foreign adventurism you espouse. You had better bone up on your history - you won't get away with that nonsense on THIS forum. These people will school you.

RedStripe
08-11-2010, 07:20 PM
Yea Obama sucks. He should have cut "defense" spending by 90% or more.

RedStripe
08-11-2010, 07:20 PM
Defense Spending = Corporate Welfare

Jack Bauer
08-11-2010, 07:36 PM
defense spending = corporate welfare

This. :D

Pericles
08-11-2010, 08:20 PM
Jaan attacked the US for complicated reasons stemming from the US occupation of the Philippines and meddling in China and Southeast Asia. Yes, Japan thought the US would not fight but not because of any "sudden withdrawal". So this does not support your point. Furthermore, Japan was an industrial powerhouse with a highly educated population and a well-honed army. Nobody we are currently fighting has any of these qualities.

.................................................

The Founders were uniformly against the foreign adventurism you espouse. You had better bone up on your history - you won't get away with that nonsense on THIS forum. These people will school you.
I suggest you bone up on your history as well.

The US gained possession of the Philippines in 1898 from Spain. So it took Japan a bit over 40 years to get worked up about it? Did Japan have some claim to those islands superior to ours?

After the Boxer Rebellion, Marines are in China periodically as the Communist vs. nationalist civil war takes place, and Japan invades China in 1931. So it takes another 10 years for Japan to get annoyed at the US for not going along with the Japanese invasion and occupation of China?

So the US stops selling steel and oil to Japan - a move that I thought would meet with approval will the non aggression principle fans here - as Japan was using the resources to invade other countries and do bad things (rape of Nanking and "comfort women" from Korea).

Wolfgang Bohringer
08-11-2010, 11:42 PM
This [War is the ultimate Big Government program] needs to be turned into a slogan, used on Tshirts, banners, chants, everything possible. Especially at Tea Party rallies.

Yes. We especially need to produce and distribute tons of 2 to 3 foot long helium filled blimps with slogans such as "War is the Biggest Government Program" with Ron Paul's stenciled profile on the nosecones.

Acala
08-12-2010, 05:24 AM
I suggest you bone up on your history as well.

The US gained possession of the Philippines in 1898 from Spain. So it took Japan a bit over 40 years to get worked up about it? Did Japan have some claim to those islands superior to ours?

After the Boxer Rebellion, Marines are in China periodically as the Communist vs. nationalist civil war takes place, and Japan invades China in 1931. So it takes another 10 years for Japan to get annoyed at the US for not going along with the Japanese invasion and occupation of China?

So the US stops selling steel and oil to Japan - a move that I thought would meet with approval will the non aggression principle fans here - as Japan was using the resources to invade other countries and do bad things (rape of Nanking and "comfort women" from Korea).

This does not refute what I said. US presence in the Philippines was an obstacle to Japanese ambitions in the region, as was our meddling in China and our attempts to embargo Japan. How LONG we had been meddling there is irrelevant. If we had not been mucking about with our military on the other side of the planet Japan would have had no reason to attack us. Or perhaps you think they hated us for our freedom.

I don't support the US stopping selling oil and steel since the US doesn't OWN any oil and steel. What it did was interfere with the freedom of individuals to sell THEIR oil and steel. And no, I don't support that. Yes, Japan was engaged in evil. So we fought Japan to make China safe for Mao who was SO much better!

The US government cannot be trusted to police the world. It will ALWAYS fail through a combination of incompetence, greed, corruption, and power lust. It has one legitimate job to do when it comes to armed activity - defend THIS country from actual invasion. Whenever it strays from that simple mission things go terribly wrong.