A militarily weak US government could have saved us trillions of taxpayer dollars

Printable View

08-04-2011, 10:23 AM
yourviewpoints

A militarily weak US government could have saved us trillions of taxpayer dollars

CBS News first identified Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi as "Curveball" in a 2007 investigation of "one of the deadliest con jobs of our time."

Although U.N. inspectors found no evidence to back up al-Janabi's claims of a biological weapons program, the Bush administration still relied on the bogus evidence to start a war that's led to over 100,000 deaths (plus millions of refugees fleeing the terror which we call war )

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecut...out-wmd-claims

And the wars could cost the US as much as $4 trillion to $6 trillion ( that is five hundred thousand million dollars plus eleven times the same amount of five hundred thousand million dollars )

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes...llion-1.120054

CONCLUSION :

If the US government was militarily weak like Switzerland, even if Al-Janabi lied to us, would the US government have had the power to go to war against Iraq and if it could not, today we would have saved trillions of dollars ( projected ) and saved hundreds of thousands of lives

including saving the lives of tens of thousands of our soldiers who have either died horrifying deaths or were injured or maimed or are suffering from PTSD

and valuable resources could have been directed to saving millions of Americans lives because right now, millions of Americans are dying every few years while cancer funding research is being cut right now

http://www.aacr.org/home/public--med...h-funding.aspx
08-04-2011, 10:27 AM
swiftfoxmark2

We have nukes. What do we need troops for?

Seriously though, we can definitely stand to cut military spending by 50% or more and still adequately defend our borders from foreign invaders.
08-04-2011, 10:29 AM
acptulsa

What was wrong with your other thread on this subject? If you're a one-subject poster, make a thread and stick to it.
08-04-2011, 10:34 AM
virgil47

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourviewpoints

CBS News first identified Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi as "Curveball" in a 2007 investigation of "one of the deadliest con jobs of our time."

Although U.N. inspectors found no evidence to back up al-Janabi's claims of a biological weapons program, the Bush administration still relied on the bogus evidence to start a war that's led to over 100,000 deaths (plus millions of refugees fleeing the terror which we call war )

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecut...out-wmd-claims

And the wars could cost the US as much as $4 trillion to $6 trillion ( that is five hundred thousand million dollars plus eleven times the same amount of five hundred thousand million dollars )

http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes...llion-1.120054

CONCLUSION :

If the US government was militarily weak like Switzerland, even if Al-Janabi lied to us, would the US government have had the power to go to war against Iraq and if it could not, today we would have saved trillions of dollars ( projected ) and saved hundreds of thousands of lives

including saving the lives of tens of thousands of our soldiers who have either died horrifying deaths or were injured or maimed or are suffering from PTSD

and valuable resources could have been directed to saving millions of Americans lives because right now, millions of Americans are dying every few years while cancer funding research is being cut right now

http://www.aacr.org/home/public--med...h-funding.aspx

The actual conclusion is we'd be rich but under the control of a foriegn power. Hmmm, rich slaves are slaves none the less.
08-04-2011, 10:37 AM
yourviewpoints

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

The actual conclusion is we'd be rich but under the control of a foriegn power. Hmmm, rich slaves are slaves none the less.

Slaves to whom ?
08-04-2011, 10:42 AM
heavenlyboy34

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

The actual conclusion is we'd be rich but under the control of a foriegn power. Hmmm, rich slaves are slaves none the less.

http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg
08-04-2011, 11:04 AM
Liberty4life

What is missing from your post is who will fill the vacuum of power when the US is not there.

Would you like to have seen a more powerful Russia take over leadership of the world? Maybe China? more likely Japan, or Perhaps the UK would be the dominant power.
08-04-2011, 11:16 AM
yourviewpoints

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liberty4life

So if in your perfect world you think a weak America would result in world utopia? am I far off?
.

Not a utopia but a America that is prosperous, just, friendly, healthy, admired around the world and not making enemies :

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...g-to-the-world
08-04-2011, 06:15 PM
virgil47

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourviewpoints

Slaves to whom ?

Whomever is willing to spend the money on their military!
08-04-2011, 06:18 PM
virgil47

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

http://www.facepalm.de/images/facepalm.jpg

Yes weakness in the face of aggressive militaristic foriegn entities that would love to rule you is indeed dumb.
08-04-2011, 06:27 PM
pcosmar

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourviewpoints

Free mental health testing should be optional unless they want to buy guns. Would you let a person like Brevik buy a gun ?

From your identical position I suspect you are PubJohn47?, recreated right after banning.
Is this true?
08-04-2011, 07:03 PM
heavenlyboy34

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

Yes weakness in the face of aggressive militaristic foriegn entities that would love to rule you is indeed dumb.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs43/f/20...nimeWolf94.jpg
08-04-2011, 10:43 PM
virgil47

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs43/f/20...nimeWolf94.jpg

Well it does happen to those who feel but do not think. It does happen to those that refuse to consider all of the possibilities. It does happen to those that are either unwilling or afraid to protect themselves.
08-04-2011, 11:24 PM
heavenlyboy34

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

Well it does happen to those who feel but do not think. It does happen to those that refuse to consider all of the possibilities. It does happen to those that are either unwilling or afraid to protect themselves.

Who said anything to that effect? You're just trying to put words in others' mouths here.

Further, you claimed "Yes weakness in the face of aggressive militaristic foriegn entities that would love to rule you is indeed dumb."-implying that paring the military down to a reasonable, affordable, and cost-efficient size is "weakness". It's not. You are, as you would say, "feeling rather than thinking". That is why you fail.
08-04-2011, 11:45 PM
JK/SEA

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

Well it does happen to those who feel but do not think. It does happen to those that refuse to consider all of the possibilities. It does happen to those that are either unwilling or afraid to protect themselves.

Should a ghost town have a Sheriff and deputies?....
08-05-2011, 06:56 AM
pcosmar

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK/SEA

Should a ghost town have a Sheriff and deputies?....

Only if the Sheriff is duly elected by the ghosts. And the deputies are also ghosts.
;)
08-05-2011, 07:00 AM
pcosmar

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcosmar

From your identical position I suspect you are PubJohn47?, recreated right after banning.
Is this true?

Quote:

yourviewpoints
Banned

would seem so.
08-05-2011, 10:18 AM
virgil47

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

Who said anything to that effect? You're just trying to put words in others' mouths here.

Further, you claimed "Yes weakness in the face of aggressive militaristic foriegn entities that would love to rule you is indeed dumb."-implying that paring the military down to a reasonable, affordable, and cost-efficient size is "weakness". It's not. You are, as you would say, "feeling rather than thinking". That is why you fail.

Perhaps you should reread the op's post. Being militarily weak was indeed the premise of his discourse was it not? Weakness is not something we as a nation should strive for as it invites attack.
08-05-2011, 10:34 AM
acptulsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by virgil47

Perhaps you should reread the op's post. Being militarily weak was indeed the premise of his discourse was it not? Weakness is not something we as a nation should strive for as it invites attack.

What we have here is someone trying to get us to alienate G.O.P. voters with our anti-imperialism. But, as the sign said, FAIL. No libertarian Constitutionalist is anxious to have the nation taken over from without any more than we're pleased it was taken over from within.
08-05-2011, 10:38 AM
LibertyEagle

Quote:

Originally Posted by acptulsa

What we have here is someone trying to get us to alienate G.O.P. voters with our anti-imperialism. But, as the sign said, FAIL. No libertarian Constitutionalist is anxious to have the nation taken over from without any more than we're pleased it was taken over from within.

Absolutely. And I think that was what Virgil was trying to point out to the OP.
08-05-2011, 10:39 AM
acptulsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Absolutely. And I think that was what Virgil was trying to point out to the OP.

Actually, I think he was trying to point it out to the voluntaryist. But, yes.
08-05-2011, 10:39 AM
LibertyEagle

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs43/f/20...nimeWolf94.jpg

Facepalm your own self, hb. Virgil is absolutely right.
08-05-2011, 10:40 AM
acptulsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by LibertyEagle

Facepalm your own self, hb. Virgil is absolutely right.

And, hb, speak for yourself when you talk about epic fails happening to all of us.
08-05-2011, 10:52 AM
heavenlyboy34

I see my point has been totally missed. :( I have nothing against actual defense. But the current arrangement is more offensive than defensive. It's not realistic in the real world to abandon defense. You should all be allowed to have whatever army you want to pay for. I would certainly pay into a true defense system. I am against the current ridiculously overblown, overpriced MIC.
08-05-2011, 10:55 AM
acptulsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

I am against the current ridiculously overblown, overpriced MIC.

I, too, am against six hundred dollar hammers and five hundred dollar screws. I, too, am against rampant imperialism. But these things have no place in this thread. This thread is a troll thread about weak defense. It's a trap, and I would hope we're all too smart to fall into it. I would hope that...
08-05-2011, 11:25 AM
jmdrake

Quote:

Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34

I see my point has been totally missed. :( I have nothing against actual defense. But the current arrangement is more offensive than defensive. It's not realistic in the real world to abandon defense. You should all be allowed to have whatever army you want to pay for. I would certainly pay into a true defense system. I am against the current ridiculously overblown, overpriced MIC.

+rep. 250 million guns means it's unlikely anyone would try to take us over. And we could have a strong defensive military without having much offensive capability. Regardless once we go broke it won't matter. We'll all be like "Wasn't it cool how we were strong enough to defend ourselves militarily before we became too broke to afford even the fuel for the jets and ships and stuff?"
08-05-2011, 03:42 PM
Pericles

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmdrake

+rep. 250 million guns means it's unlikely anyone would try to take us over. And we could have a strong defensive military without having much offensive capability. Regardless once we go broke it won't matter. We'll all be like "Wasn't it cool how we were strong enough to defend ourselves militarily before we became too broke to afford even the fuel for the jets and ships and stuff?"

Russia is an interesting example. At the last May Day parade in Red Square, only one type of vehicle on display was in service during the Cold War. We may laugh at them now, but they are using the collapse as a means of reform.
08-05-2011, 04:28 PM
jmdrake

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pericles

Russia is an interesting example. At the last May Day parade in Red Square, only one type of vehicle on display was in service during the Cold War. We may laugh at them now, but they are using the collapse as a means of reform.

Wouldn't it be a sick joke if after all our crowing about "winning the cold war", Russia and China ended up being the world's only superpowers?
08-05-2011, 04:56 PM
Pericles

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmdrake

Wouldn't it be a sick joke if after all our crowing about "winning the cold war", Russia and China ended up being the world's only superpowers?

Fortunately for us, they are still very limited in their ability to project power more than a couple of hundred miles beyond their borders. But the irony is not lost on me.
08-05-2011, 05:16 PM
heavenlyboy34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmdrake

Wouldn't it be a sick joke if after all our crowing about "winning the cold war", Russia and China ended up being the world's only superpowers?

Indeed!