General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo those who'd say a bigger U.S. war budget would have stopped Putin...this sobering fact:
Last year, our death budget was $682 billion.
Russia's was $90.7 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
More troops in Europe...more missiles in Europe...more ships sailing near Europe and planes flying over it ready to bomb...NONE of that would have stopped what happened in Ukraine...and none of it can help now.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But this leads to some uncomfortable conclusions, at least its uncomfortable for some. The problem is our military is too stretched and too thin.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)We have another 850,000 or so in the reserves. Our military budget was almost $700 billion in 2012, far more than any other country.
How many more soldiers do you think we need, and how much more do you think we need to spend?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)We're not able to defend Europe from Russia: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4802346
Lasher
(27,597 posts)Sure, we have NATO commitments. But why is it that we are usually expected to send in the vast majority of forces? It is because we have them. Fore example, we have ten huge nuclear aircraft carriers. Ten! France has one under commission. Nobody else in the whole world has any.
What I am saying is, we need to drastically reduce the number of our missions. If Europe is to be defended from Russia, then let Europe take the lead. We need to reduce the overall size of our military by at least half. The last thing we need to do is throw even more money and bodies at too many missions.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)European countries don't want a unified army, or more funding and people for their militaries, and can't do it all alone. Mind you, I do think we can learn a lot from countries like Norway, Finland, Switzerland and such. I also think we need some sort of conscription system, but that would give most Americans a giant emotional fit..
Lasher
(27,597 posts)Europe doesn't want to pay for their own defense. That is an option for them because we will take care of that for them. We are borrowing money from China to fund our bloated war budget. Now we're so deep in debt, a Democratic President keeps offering to cut Social Security. We just cut back on our food stamp program. Most Europeans have actual universal health care. We don't. We are being played as chumps.
No, I don't think we should defend Europe. We should help defend our NATO allies. We certainly should not play an overwhelmingly dominant role in this each and every time.
Most people who favor the draft are those who would not be subjected to it. You wouldn't be. I was drafted into the Army in 1969. I have never wished that tyranny on anybody else.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 02:52 PM - Edit history (2)
Many nations in Europe are too small to really form adequate defenses against Russia, and need our help. That being said, they do need to hold their own and stop deferring so much to us. So I guess we're sort of in agreement. I'm all for budget cuts, but not disarmament.
Well okay, if you want to be isolationist, we won't have much agreement, I actually believe in NATO...
I'd never be for a draft that didn't include women. But maybe draft is a bad word. I mean some mandatory military service like Finland or Norway or what Germany had? A lot would agree with me there. I don't mean plucking people randomly to go die in Afghanistan. However, I do think some mandatory service would be good for society, even if your experience wasn't pleasant apparently (sorry about that).
Lasher
(27,597 posts)That is what I said. My point is, our allies should do more to share in that responsibility. A lot more. That doesn't make me an isolationist.
Thankfully, most Americans remain opposed to the draft. If it were to resume today it would be for men only. About half the people think that if conscription were to resume it should include women. I agree with that sentiment, but I don't think that women would be drafted even in this enlightened age. Maybe at some point in your lifetime but not in mine.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)No other way around that. Look at previous posts and threads.
Well Israel and Norway conscript women, and I'm not talking a Vietnam era style draft, I'm talking something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany
I think I should make a thread about this separately.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)The US currently accounts for 75% of NATO defense spending. If NATO military presence is to be increased anywhere, it should be done by other member states, and certainly not by the USA. We are carrying far more than our share already.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)As already stated elsewhere...
Lasher
(27,597 posts)Why do you keep trying to tag America with the sole NATO responsibility?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm simply saying Europe is not up to snuff now. You can whine all you want about Europeans slacking off their duties to defend themselves, but that doesn't really do a lot in this current situation. We either get serious now or just let Russia steamroll them.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)As I have said, we bankroll NATO to the tune of 75% of their total cost. That is a shitload of money. You never did answer the first question I put to you: How many more soldiers do you think we need, and how much more do you think we need to spend?
Would you please answer that question now? How much is too much if 75% is not already? Is there any limit to our responsibility while we wait on Europeans to voluntarily get "up to snuff"?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Unless you propose some sort of United States of Europe which would in turn have to build a large military, but yeah, good luck selling the Europeans on that...
Your question has been answered already, I gave a link on this in fact....
pangaia
(24,324 posts)would be perfectly capable of defending themselves as a group if they cared to. With "some" US help? maybe? Think of all the $$$$ Rockwell, Boeing, Cheney, Blackwater, Lockheed et al could make...
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Our obligation to another country cannot exceed it's own responsibility.
You are making a hell of an argument against NATO though, you are stating that Europe is by definition in breech, they wouldn't defend us from a damn thing and in fact cannot be prevailed upon to defend themselves to the point that your are arguing that being a member makes us have primary responsibility for each nation's security apparently because they don't want to even 5th the sacrifice of our own domestic needs.
Fuck that! You are talking crazy here. Possibly crazier than I've heard anyone else openly speak.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And if we're going to use parents as an analogy, would you let your kid die on the streets if they were too lazy to take care of themselves?
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Are you going to join the service? My daughter served in Afghanistan, my Son in Iraq. I'm assuming this is part of your future goal, given you think "conscription" is a good idea.
What branch are you thinking of?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't support everyone having to go to Afghanistan or Iraq, wars I don't even support. All I said was a musing in fact. But I really should start a thread on this, since it's an interesting subject with a lot of confusion I think surrounding it.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)but will only accept posting you believe are 'right?'
I am curious, how old are you, if you ant to say?
If not, that is fine.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I'm 19, ask me whatever you want. I've already revealed this on here anyway
Again, the conscription comment was more of a muse. I do think though if we had a real necessary war, we should have a draft.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)but you refuse to go where you are told to go if you don't like it?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I won't take a combat MOS to kill people who aren't threatening the US, that's for sure.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)You seem like a very nice person.
And you seem very thoughtful.
But may I say, I think you have a lot to learn about how the world works, how politics works, how society works, what reality is, and, interestingly enough, how the Army works.
Someone else mentioned that your ideas/opinions are 'all over the place.' I think this just comes from your naivete. But if you keep thinking and questioning, you surely will arrive at something.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't follow.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)That's part of being naive.
And you must learn that lesson yourself, which I think you will.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I guess I just object to being called naive, especially since I don't see how I am acting naive...
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Everything is.
A newborn baby is wrinkled and comes from.... An old man is wrinkled and goes back to...
In the beginning things are simple. Then they become more complex. Then they become simple again.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.. So where does that lead? Am I getting somewhere? Or is there nowhere to get to?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)And you are all over the place with your opinions it seems to me, that is more confusing. But start your thread-- it's sounds very interesting
And out of curiosity, which branch of the military are you thinking of joining?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I plan to join the army actually, like my dad.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)Army is good; are you planning on getting a degree first?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)How is it good for society?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Interestingly, more than a few liberals agree with me, and not as much conservatives, judging by my google searches. And some of most liberal and progressive countries do it.
I should start a separate thread on this, it's an interesting topic.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)You mean "Hey, lets all join the army together. Turrr.. rum tum tum, turr rum tum tum. "
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)power in numbers and all. ...I smell military/gov troll.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Separation
(1,975 posts)Why does Europe and other countries get those great social programs? Probably because they can count on us bailing them out militarily if the Red Menace decided to roll in.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)We have adequate resources, but we are wasting them on the wrong things.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But yeah Europeans do expect us to bail them out, that's true.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)It's a simple matter of priorities.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Lasher
(27,597 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I doubt most Americans would favor us leaving NATO and isolating ourselves though. But just admit in the future you don't want us to protect Europe and participate in NATO.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)What possible way could reading it enhance our perception of ourselves as sane rational liberals?
NASA has told us to prepare for the second Dark Ages. And all some people want to talk about is another arms race.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Of course "we" are "not able to defend Europe from Russia," and it's absurd to think such a thing is possible short of nuclear war (which is how the U.S. would have "defended" Europe from the Soviet Union all along). On the other hand, who are "we" and who decided that "our" job is to "defend Europe from Russia."
Luckily, it is an equally absurd idea that Russia today threatens "Europe" militarily.
Meanwhile, there are real problems in the world not being addressed thanks to the pulverization of wealth by all the military-industrial complexes planning for impossible scenarios. It's 70 years into the nuclear age: overdue time for all the boys to give up their toys.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)What a silly thought.
Also silly me to think Russia invading other countries and threatening to do so again is threatening Europe. Also the fact that European leaders see this as a threat...silly them....
Oh please.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)That was the reality of its actual "defense."
After World War II, the United States policy establishment, led by the economic royalists and anti-communist ideologues whom FDR had condemned, chose the course of Cold War and nuclear arms race over the opportunity to deescalate and disarm in coordination with its wartime ally, the Soviet Union, which had no interest in extending beyond the sphere of influence established at the end of the Nazi war. Your "defense of Europe" was therefore perceived as necessary. It was always a matter of nuclear terror (soon enough, mutual) and began with the nuclear strikes on Japan, as a demonstration to the Soviets of what the U.S. was willing to do.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)NATO simply guarantees European security, that's all.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... we WASTED them fooling around in Iraq. Idiotic actions have consequences, and every asshole that was for going into Iraq can look in the mirror if they want to know why we are "stretched too thin".
It certainly isn't money, we spend an ASTOUNDING amount, more than we should on the military and what do we get?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kind of cruel...
sendero
(28,552 posts).. is going to attack us, that is idiotic. And there are mistakes, and then there are mistakes. Iraq was no "mistake" it was genocide promoted by our "leaders" while most of the population played nod, nod, wink, wink.
And once it was underway we have to listen to the military brass lie again and again about what they could accomplish and when. In the private sector, these guys would be selling used cars or washing dishes.
You may be over it but I am not.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If you think that we don't need a military to defend us, you're the one who's being idiotic.
The war in Iraq is not "genocide", you're just being hyperbolic and silly now.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... that a military is needed to protect ourselves. Not the one we have now though, let someone else be the World Police.
And as a matter of FACT, if any country other that us did what we did in Iraq, it would be considered a war crime and we'd have our leaders in the Hague. There's nothing "silly" about that FACT.
We had ZERO right to go into Iraq, not ANY.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But I don't think you really care about that.
And first Iraq is genocide, now it's a war crime? Get your stuff straight.
raccoon
(31,111 posts)Seriously, what planet are you living on, that you think we need to EXPAND our military???
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Though not entirely for this reason. And yes, I do think we need to expand in Europe to properly defend it (this doesn't mean expanding funding, this just means reorienting our military). There was a thread about it on here not too long ago. The military isn't the problem, it's what it's used for.
Also the military itself needs radical restructuring beyond budget cuts.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)why can't Europe, which dwarfs Russia in population and economic power, defend itself?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)thucythucy
(8,069 posts)is little short of absurd.
Germany alone (with nominal help from its allies Italy and Finland) nearly destroyed the Soviet Union during WWII. If the USSR had not had the assistance of the US, and the British Empire, the war would, most optimistically, have ended in stalemate between Germany and the USSR.
Together Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain, Benelux and newly enrolled members of NATO (Poland, Czech Republic, etc.) have far greater military potential than the Russian Federation, which, remember, is significantly LESS powerful militarily and economically than the old USSR.
Europe has a long tradition of military alliances that constitute a greater military machine than, say, Alabama or Utah. To suggest that Europe, particularly western Europe including Germany, is somehow incapable of developing sufficient military power to defend itself is historically dubious, to say the least.
In terms of nuclear weaponry, both France and the UK have sufficient nuclear weapons to provide a strong deterrent.
Should we be in NATO, and maintain a military presence in Europe as a tripwire? Absolutely. Should we be footing the vast majority of the bill to defend Europe? No.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I actually said European nations are like if the 50 states were on their own, they cannot defend themselves. I said the only way Europe could is if it became a United States like us. Do actually keep up with my arguments before responding.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)you're not actually comparing European nations to the 50 US states?
Then why bring "the 50 states" into it at all?
Do actually try to keep up with your own half-baked analogies.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I didn't. I said Europe would have to adopt a US style approach to defend itself without NATO.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the United States as a federation of independent states with their own militias that would join together to fight off external threats. A standing Federal army was considered antithetical to democracy.
The Civil War and Lincoln changed all that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Nowadays every state could not defend themselves.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)And if the standing Federal army wasn't there? I believe the state militias would be much more substantial.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the individual state militias would have organically adapted with the times.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Prior to the Civil War people considered themselves primarily a citizen of their state, and referred to the country as "these" (as opposed to "the" United States. Without the dramatic centralization of power that followed the Civil War, each state would have developed more independently. We would have a situation that would be closer to the European Union - a federation of independent states.
The evolution of those states from 1865 - 2014 could easily have resulted in strengthened state militias. Consider what the individual states were able to muster for the Civil War.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Why? And how would a militia be structured exactly in your vision? I'm just curious
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However, I believe that the government that works best is the government closest to the people. I could envision a United States in which each individual State would have much more sovereignty, and that could be a good thing.
One nice side effect would be that the U.S. would be less prone to Imperialist meddling in world affairs. With the federation's military strength dispersed among the State militias, it would be more difficult to engage in such folly as the Iraq invasion - the Oregon Militia, for example, would have leverage to refuse to participate. Rather than having a unitary Presidency able to deploy military forces on its whim, there would need to be much more consensus building before embarking on military adventures. This would have the effect of limiting American military activities across the globe, and help ensure that the militias would only be deployed in cases of actual danger to the Union (rather than imaginary danger, such as the ridiculous notion that tribes of third-world insurgents require a five-year campaign of drone murder).
But, again, that's not the situation we have currently. But I can imagine such a situation in an alternate universe.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I assumed every state basically being its own nation would mean utter chaos.
Also when you say militias, do you mean like the Swiss militia, where every citizen has to serve a few years and be a reserve member afterwards? I actually think that would be a better setup than we have now, honestly. And in such a context, you wouldn't mind the state militias actually deciding to go to war, if they felt it was right?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Governments are stable.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)All economies are vulnerable to depression. You may have noticed we had one as well - would that make you describe the United States as "unstable?"
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Lasher
(27,597 posts)At this time Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And Ukraine is a NATO ally. It's clear what Russia is doing.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)NATO members are obliged to help defend fellow member states. Ukraine has no such official status.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And of course Estonia for starters...
Lasher
(27,597 posts)That is from the first paragraph of the Wiki article you linked. There are 28 NATO member states. Ukraine is not one of them. Partnerships are not memberships.
Plans for Ukrainian membership to NATO were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych was elected President. President Yanukovych opted to keep Ukraine a non-aligned state.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Ukraine is just a warmer for NATO. We really do need to defend Europe now.
Lasher
(27,597 posts)And you just doubled down on categorically false assumptions. Ukraine has no official status in NATO as I have demonstrated. And Europe does not equal NATO.
Wake me up when a NATO member state officially asks all the other 27 members to send in the cavalry because they are being attacked by an external party.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Please don't ignore my links in the future. And you're moving the goal post, ironically as I have just provided you sources of NATO members asking for assistance due to recent Russian threats. Also: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304585004579417313413460136
Just admit you don't want us to have any commitments in NATO and for us to just leave Europe.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)handle a threat then we aid the and vice versa so European NATO pact countries need to defend themselves as well. It is not our duty to go broke and spend blood because they don't want to.
Western Europe needs to raise some taxes to float expanded defense if they desire it. They aren't under attack.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Nor would we. Nor can Europe's NATO members defend themselves on their own, hence their membership in NATO to begin with. And yes, Europe is under attack. Go tell the European countries on the border with Russia if they feel under attack or that they may be the next target...
cprise
(8,445 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And claiming that "war profiteers" are making bank primarily off of Europe is...stupid. What can I say?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)willing to subsidize that decision at the expense of the American people.
And no they are not under attack, sentiment is not reality and I'm happy to tell them all about it.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)In which case, I simply think you're naive and insane...
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)It is a mutual defense pact not an USA is primarily responsible for security and its costs in blood and treasure/blank check to subsidize pact.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)So unless you want us to leave NATO, we have to um..play our part?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and dishonestly, I would have to say) hinting that the United States is in violation of the NATO pact?
If so I see why you are dancing because they the time for circular dancing and emotional blackmail will end and you will be prevailed upon to cite the sections and will either have to concede hyperbole, at minimum. Or have to go down a pretty embarrassing path of trying to stretch something well be the range of honesty to arguments that will by definition conclude Europe is long past busted the pact to hell themselves to the point that there is no functional agreement.
Fair warning, it appears you are trying to go down a path that will almost always make you look stupid, like a mad neocon, and/or very dishonest.
Ok, now you've jigged and shuffled around on this long enough, what violation(s) of the treaty have we committed?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Recently talked with my electronics engineer in Poland about what he thought about Russian activity. No one there is concerned about it.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)think
(11,641 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Lasher
(27,597 posts)It's actually the very best purpose of this website in my opinion.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I wasn't offended by you or anyone else disagreeing with me. I enjoy good discussions
Lasher
(27,597 posts)Fair debate is a good thing.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)we need to slash military spending drastically, 50% would be a good start.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From the Homeland.
Oh. And the year after the 50-percent?
Another 50-percent.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)To crush domestic dissent or to defend against Mexico and Canada?
I'm confused as to why people would want a huge military only on our soil?
malaise
(269,054 posts)Why are the velvet revolutions and the West's overthrow of legitimately elected governments acceptable to the West, but the overthrow of them by citizens of those countries is viewed by the West as terrorism. Even Western media are having a rough time trying to spin their usual crap.
In my part of the world we have a useful proverb - jackass say the world isn't level.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)We need to stay out of politics in other countries. Our record of installing dictators is deplorable!
Igel
(35,320 posts)Because they opposite the overthrow of legitimately elected governments acceptable to the West as terrorism, and the overthrow of them by other countries' or organizations' agents is unacceptable.
As soon as you realize that we all let throw that subset of facts that support what we believe and want to believe while screening out or rejecting the importance of those that disagree with us, it all becomes a lot easier to grog.
A phone call between two people unrelated is taken as firm evidence of great involvement. Support by USAID and other US agencies is taken as conspiratorial, even if much less than other country's aid to other organizations in the country. The possibility of having US, EU, or others that we don't like is much greater than those actively benefitting from a situation--and if there's a change and the "bad guys" in the West don't really benefit, it's either forgotten or taken as a deeper game. (The problem with a nearly fact-free CT is that it can always be retconned and diddled with to bring it in line with, well, a nearly fact-free scenario but at the same time to make it more emotionally satisfying.)
Take all the "those aren't really Russian troops in the Crimea" rhetoric. After all, Russia denied they were Russian troops and they weren't wearing labels that said "Russian soldier", so whatever was reported coming out of the mouth of the Crimean self-defense had to be hearsay. Until Russia said it was withdrawing troops and equipment. Suddenly all the self-defense troops vanished, the heavy equipment sporting non-Crimean tags vanished, and Putin gave a speech praising the Russian troops and their actions in Crimea were professional, showed a high degree of coordination and readiness, as well as their level of physical training and equipment. The only people unsure were those who wanted to be unsure. That's how confirmation bias works.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)A huge part of the problem.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Even after Putin told us they were. Methinks Putin would know.
My lord, not everything is just the evil US.
Malaise I like you and respect you, but I am afraid I will have to stop reading these posts of yours.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Do you have anything of substance to say? Or just lame one-liners and stereotypes?
TBF
(32,064 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)They should pay for their own military ...not us.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Also many of them simply cannot form adequate defenses on the level needed in any case. So either we help them or throw them to the wolves.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and fuck the military ...and fuck their wars ...and fuck all the assholes who push for military action ...and fuck the other countries that are sucking our countries blood dry while our people suffer in poverty, hunger and joblessness ...and fuck the Paul Ryan types who want to cut social programs and increase the military budget. Fuck him!
Oh yea ...and fuck those criminals in our military who rape women ...and men.
WE are the ones being thrown to the wolves!
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Either you're a total pacifist who doesn't believe in any armed forces, in which case you're living in a delusional fantasy, or you believe we need an armed forces and should use it wisely, this of course means defending our allies.
If your attitude is "fuck them" then you live on some isolated island where you can only look after yourself.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)Why should the US continue to spend itself into bankruptcy (yes we spent ourselves into massive debt while neglecting our own citizens) in order to "protect" Europe? From whom are we protecting Europe? This is not WWII or the Cold War -- what fantastic enemy is threatening the varied countries of Europe that justifies the US spending massive amounts of money, and even conscripting its own young people, to continue maintaining a massive military presence?
Honestly your stance on this seems rather extraordinary for a member of DU -- pro draft? accusing other DU members of being "delusional" "pacifists?" Advocating a large military presence in 2014 "Europe?"
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)It's a fantasy that the military is making us "go broke" in any case.
Why is it our job? This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO Maybe you've heard of Russia's recent actions...
If you want to say we shouldn't be in NATO and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, make that argument. It's a naive and stupid argument in my opinion, which was being made before WW2 btw, but at least be honest with your stance.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Only someone who is working for the military or government would deny that fact that our country is suffering because of the unbalanced amount of money the military sucks out of our people.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
By Glenn Greenwald
Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White Houses former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-independent advocates to cognitively infiltrate online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.
Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups which spread what he views as false and damaging conspiracy theories about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that while disputing key NSA claims proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agencys powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).
But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls false flag operations and emails to peoples families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. - Henry Kissinger
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight Eisenhower
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense
than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Martin Luther King, Jr.
MLK: Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal
Blind obedience to authority is the enemy of the truth. - Albert Einstein
Become an internationalist and learn to respect all life. Make war on machines. And in particular the sterile machines of corporate death and the robots that guard them. -Abbie Hoffman
That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotismhow passionately I hate them! Albert Einstein
Killing for corporations and sociopaths. That's what is going on. If you don't know that then I feel sorry for you.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But next time, actually do your own work
Either you're not for a military at all existing, in which case again you're a delusional fool and good luck achieving that, or you're for a military, in which case, why shouldn't we defend our allies?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and that "list" is a lot larger only you most likely wouldn't heed their warnings. Go sign up and fight for the corporations and if you get shot and are about to die I'm sure you will be happy that it was all worth your life. On the other hand I suppose their are people who don't mind the killing of innocent children while corporations make money from it. Let me know when another country's military actually comes over here and attacks us.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Tell me when you have something of substance to add.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)It's total BS. Europeans ought to be the first line of their own defence. That doesn't mean we won't get involved if that becomes actually necessary.
Speaking to delusional fantasies... Europe is well-off and they outnumber the Russians of today MANY times over.
-
BTW, have you already enlisted?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Yeah, Europe as a whole outnumbers Russia, but not the individual nations. What you're saying is basically that the 50 states of the US could defend themselves on their own because altogether they outnumber Russia, come on give me a break. But by all means, try to get the Europeans to have some unified military force Try asking them to want the US to leave and for them to fend for themselves. That should be an interesting conversation
You're living in a fantasy world where the US can just retreat into itself and not care about the rest of the world. We've seen how dangerous that path is.
Haven't yet, no
cprise
(8,445 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And two, we are the bulk of NATO. I don't see the Europeans overtaking us militarily anytime soon...
cprise
(8,445 posts)I don't see where its stated that anyone has to surpass us militarily in order to defend themselves.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And I mean European nations on their own cannot defend themselves, it's just a fact. I don't see a situation where Norway and Greece and Spain can defend themselves properly...
cprise
(8,445 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)They just choose to let us waste our own trillions. They know a sugar daddy when they see one. They spend the surplus on health cars and other services for 'the commons,' like a sane society.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Their military forces are not up to par. Clearly someone needs to defend them.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...to support such a pro-MIC argument under these circumstances.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)You'll just have to present an actual rebuttal I guess...
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)Europe is currently "incapable" of defending itself, because its leaders--reflecting the will of its electorates--choose to focus on a comprehensive social safety net, instead of conventional military forces. They can do this because the US, since the close of WWII seven decades ago, has footed the bill. And since this is the case, we must continue to foot the bill into infinity, otherwise they'll be "thrown to the wolves."
As I argue in a previous post, European states had little difficulty in the past forming alliances with tremendous military muscle. The Central Alliance (Germany, and Austria-Hungary) defeated Russia during WWI, forcing it to agree to humiliating terms in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, while at the same time fighting Britain, France, Italy. It was only with the entry of the US into the war that an exhausted Germany finally succumbed. During WWII Germany, together with (very little) support from Italy and Finland (and Romania) drove all the way to Stalingrad before the USSR was able to stop it.
Today, an alliance of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, along with the other NATO allies, have far greater economic power, and military potential, than Russia shorn of most of its USSR empire, and its eastern European allies and buffer states. The defection of the old East German military alone, from east to west, was a game-changer.
What you're essentially arguing is, since Europe chooses to be dependent on us today, it should remain so forever. It's as if we're dealing with a drug addiction or a full grown man who refuses to leave his parents' basement.
At the very least, the US needs to make it clear the current situation is untenable, and largely unjust to the American people. That, together with a reappraisal of our role as "world's policeman" should enable a significant decrease in defense spending, the "peace dividend" that somehow never happened once Bush-Cheney took control of the federal government.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I don't think individually Germany, France, UK, etc can defend themselves. They'd have to unite together as a "United States" to defend themselves adequately, but they're not going to do that because of national/ethic/regional feelings and tensions. It's easy to demonstrate this, because imagine all 50 states being left to defend themselves. It's the same situation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a blind fool...
"As I argue in a previous post, European states had little difficulty in the past forming alliances with tremendous military muscle. The Central Alliance (Germany, and Austria-Hungary) defeated Russia during WWI, forcing it to agree to humiliating terms in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, while at the same time fighting Britain, France, Italy. It was only with the entry of the US into the war that an exhausted Germany finally succumbed. During WWII Germany, together with (very little) support from Italy and Finland (and Romania) drove all the way to Stalingrad before the USSR was able to stop it."
Oh yeah, it's not like the US wasn't involved in either or that um..these European countries lost the wars...yeah.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)AcertainLiz
(863 posts)thucythucy
(8,069 posts)Russia, under Lenin, surrendered to Imperial Germany, signing the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, which, BTW, mandated an independent Ukraine, and freed the Baltic states and Finland from Russian control, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia until the Russo-German pact of 1939 and the Soviet occupation of 1940, and Finland for good.
The war started in August 1914, the US didn't enter until 1918, by which time Russia had been reduced to military impotence by the forces of Imperial Germany. If they had wanted, the Germans could have taken both Moscow and St. Petersburg, and if it hadn't been for the western front they might well have done so.
Similarly, on its own, Germany nearly crushed Soviet Russia in 1941-42.
So it stands to reason that Germany today, together with France, the UK, Italy etc., would at the very least be able to defend itself from any threatened Russian aggression.
To do this European nations don't have to "unite together" as a "United States"--they only have to form the necessary alliances and raise sufficient military force--which the "big four" (Germany, France, UK, Italy) together with the smaller states are capable of doing, IF they were required to do it.
Should the US continue to be involved with NATO, and be part of the alliance? Yes. Should all of western Europe, which taken together has a larger population and larger GDP than the US (and is vastly more powerful economically than Russia), continue to rely primarily on US military power to defend itself against a trump Russian state? I don't think so. But if you're willing to subsidize Europe indefinitely, as an excuse to support an intensely wasteful MIC, there's nothing anyone can say can convince you otherwise.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But what bearing does this have on the current situation? So you envision a situation where Germany would be able to repel Russia, today? Don't make me laugh...
It ain't so trump when it's threatening the security of the whole continent.
The EU could defend itself if it had a unified army, but try selling that to them?
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)to Europeans, we need to foot the bill for their security into the indefinite future?
The bearing history has on the current situation is that the European powers, particularly Germany/France/UK, are capable of defending themselves. As I've repeatedly mentioned now, Germany alone defeated or nearly defeated Russia in two world wars. In those situations it was Russia that needed help defending itself. So yes, I envision a situation where Germany would be able to repel Russia, so laugh away.
But as long as the US feels compelled to foot the bill for Europe, I'm sure the Europeans will be very happy to accept our help and use their tax dollars for things like education, mass transit, health care, infrastructure--stuff we say we can't afford because we dump our own money into "defense."
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)very interesting
If you think Germany/France/UK in their current condition can defend themselves from Russia or even each other, you're just not paying attention, what can I say? If you think past historical experiences, when these countries had giant empires and huge militaries, funded in large part by their imperial actions, counts now, again, you're just not paying attention. Do come back when you have your heard in 2014, not 1914.
thucythucy
(8,069 posts)But you seem to think this situation should continue indefinitely, simply because we can't "sell" the Europeans on the idea that they should take the lead in their own defense.
"Giant empires" more often than not were a drain on military capability, not an advantage. Ask the French what kind of "advantage" their empire in Africa and southeast Asia gave them against Germany in 1940.
In terms of potential available man (and woman) power and GDP, NATO nations--even minus the US and Canada--are superior to the Russian Federation. Technologically they also have the edge. If the militaries of the leading NATO powers are deficient today, it's only because we've been footing the bill, carrying the load, for seventy years. The ONLY way the Europeans will step up is if we begin to pull back--something we need to do if we're ever to wean ourselves off an economy based on endless war.
Even as it is, I highly doubt even Putin believes it's in his best interests to try to march through Poland or other eastern NATO partners. This isn't 1950s Hungary we're talking about, or 1960s Czechoslovakia, where the Russians already had bases and where they had achieved the total infiltration of the "defending" militaries.
I doubt anybody seriously expects to see Russian tanks in Warsaw or Prague anytime soon, let alone Berlin or Paris, rtight wing hysteria notwithstanding.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And even if war is not likely, which neither you or I can say if it is or isn't, I think we need to be able to defend our allies as opposed to not being able to. I don't see how anyone can argue against that, unless they don't want us to have allies and just isolate ourselves within our borders. I think the Europeans fears of more attacks are valid.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)These dependents you describe will not and could not defend even themselves.
Hell, you make a strong case that Europe has already seceded from NATO and that we are a lone zombie pretending that it isn't the walking dead.
According to AcertainLiz, the mutual defense accord we signed on to is now just an US economic suicide pact requiring a completely one sided sacrifice on the part of our citizens in blood and treasure that says the beneficiaries have no obligations whatsoever and we get no aid in need.
That is ridiculous and cannot be described as any sort of partnership and certainly cannot be stated to be mutually beneficial.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)Most of our military is not for defending Europe. And they cant help being dependents in any case.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)You seem to be stating that is exactly what it is, that we are required to open up a blank check and sacrifice whatever it takes (and I think you are clear that what is being done is insufficient while refusing to state what the needs are) while pretending we aren't cutting food stamps, cut heating assistance, closing schools, and limited all kinds of desperately needed support right now, indicating some budget challenges at the very least.
If you had your way, you argue that you'd restructure and so would not increase the world's largest military budget (not even accounting for a large black budget or the spending glommed onto the Department of Energy budget) but that clearly would be not part of the immediate calculations and would at best have to be placed in the "fix it later" pile we have been building up meaning for at least the short term, you want a substantial increase. How much? How many divisions? How many tanks? What missile systems and how many?
Hell yes we are going broke on military spending based on receipts, it is crowding out everything else, all you have to do is look at revenue and outlays.
In this environment you want a blank check for Europe seriously because they don't want to? Further, you breathlessly describe this need that they clearly don't see and I don't see what part of this you don't get no NATO nation is under attack at all.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)I think the need to defend Europe is now and not hypothetical in any case.
What would you have us do with Europe?
treestar
(82,383 posts)The missiles in Europe were to defend them from the USSR.
We may spend too much on the military, but at least let's be accurate about it. Why lie like the right does?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Despite that, we never DID let up on Russia...and we helped feed their historic(and historically justified)paranoia about Western intentions by extending NATO to their goddamn borders.
We gave Putin the material to work with. If we'd left Russia alone after 1991 and presented nothing but a positive face to them, a face that would have included making sure that the end of Stalinism didn't mean a massive decline in living standards for most Russians, Putin would have existed, but nobody would have given him a hearing and he'd probably be an irrelevant desk jockey somewhere in the police bureaucracy, dreaming his dreams but ignored.
This is what happens when you treat a nation as "vanquished" after a war that ended in, essentially, a negotiated draw.
But our leaders have never learned from that.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)But we can't totally disarm or make the military tiny and useless, and we need to defend our allies, unless I guess we want to abandon them to the wolves?
The military needs radical restructuring though, not just some budget cuts. I have a few ideas, but eh, I'm a peon with no influence, so whatevs
pangaia
(24,324 posts)"... make the military tiny and useless..?"
It is just to damn HUGE! It's obscene .
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)If you don't believe in defending our allies, just say so. But don't pretend it's some noble thing to do.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I think you are inferring something that I didn't imply.
But, maybe our 'allies' should take a little more responsibility for themselves.
Our military is gargantuan and is considered by many countries to one one of the biggest threats to world peace.
I mean, we have,, what is it now 150? military bases.. ONE- HUNDRED and FIFTY! What is dat, mon?
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)We should be reducing its size and re-prioritizing it toward actual defense and not attack.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But it is not 'spread thin.' It is in too many other places than the US.
Then bring the Army, Navy. Air Force and Marines home. Make it illegal to send nice folks like these -
http://blackwaterjobs.org/ - anywhere in the name of the United States.
AcertainLiz
(863 posts)And no, we don't need all the troops in the US, we aren't East Germany...
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Who says that, i'd like to see a link please.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And much of the propaganda machine funded by the Kochs(among their other noxious messages).
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)we should bear in mind that we get a lot less bang for our buck than China and Russia do. We might spend over 7 times as much as the Russians, but our soldiers and equipment are way too expensive to give us 7 times the capacity.
randome
(34,845 posts)As for NATO, I can see putting more emphasis there and less on other parts of the world. But we can start reducing the amount of money spent by eliminating redundant and unneeded weapons systems.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
What are you going on about re: Obama?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The president has been pretty sensible in his response.
This is actually an anti-hawk thread.
agbdf
(200 posts)President Obama is proposing sound, well thought out, cuts to the DoD. I doubt he or any other responsible Democratic elected official would refer to it as a "death budget. " President Obama has consistently praised the heroism and selflessness of our young men and women in uniform fighting overseas. By your tone, shall I assume that our "death budget" should be zero Dollars spent and hence that we maintain no military or do you support President Obama's sensible cuts to our military such as reducing the size of the Army? Military defenses are, unfortunately, a necessary evil in this world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We no longer need troops in Europe...or most of Asia.
Nothing against military people...but the whole point of the military is to kill now or prepare to kill later. That's why it exists.
At times(territorial defense)that can be necessary. But beyond that, no. "Force projection" is a strictly right-wing concept and can only have right-wing results. War no longer liberates anyone.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)of the death machine would not himself call it a "death budget."
Oh horrors that anyone should! After all the "heroism and selflessness" of "our" "young men and women in uniform" FIGHTING OVERSEAS.
Why the fuck are they "fighting" OVERSEAS -- at the moment mostly by sitting in St. Louis or some such, mashing buttons on a remote control to bomb people in countries that the United States is not actually at war with?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)accomplish?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Maybe it's time to give up on the wars and try doing something constructive instead.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Isaac Asimov
Bigmack
(8,020 posts)We can't afford it.
Bigger presence in Europe...?
We can't afford it.
Push back at the Chinese in the Western Pacific...?
We can't afford it.
F-35...?
We can't afford it.
A $Trillion a year on "defense"...?
WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Turn about is fair play, I guess.
Would it really have been so hard to offer Russia a hand up, instead of installing what Michael Parenti refers to as yet another comprador class (the Oligarchs).
agbdf
(200 posts)Russia has ICBMs both in ground silos and on submarines. While the Russian defense budget is less than ours, they still have a decent army which we would have to fight in their own backyard. Russian Army units still have some tactical nukes and Russia still maintains the Cold War doctrine of releasing authority for use of tactical, battlefield nukes to Division commanders.
It would be unwise for us to get involved in a shooting war with Russia. In the end, it's a European issue. However, we can and should consider stiffer economic sanctions.