The High Price of US Militarism

**Evil Baby** · 20th February 2004, 06:00 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (IronYuppie,)
mlingley:

I think if they had a base near the Continental US it wouldn't last more than a day, we'd of course quickly blow the **** out of it :) . The thing is, they are hell-bent on destroying the Infidels and turning the World into an Islamic Utopia. We are hell-bent on protecting ourselves and making sure their vision of the future never comes to fruition. Which would you prefer, that we sit back and relax in the cool breeze of our windmills and let Islamo-fascism spread arounbd the globe like a cancer? Or actually spend the needed money on the military so we can prevent that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Or maybe Nations will just fight back, people will revolt. How much of a hold did the Catholic Church have on the world not so long ago? They were all fanatics compared to what we are today, that's not to say they didn't change.

Personally I think it would be money better spent to bring the standard of living up and increase education. I think education is the best weapon against this kind of evil.

**Jackney Sneeb** · 20th February 2004, 06:01 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
I really don't care what the US spends its money on, I was just putting the link up for the hell of it. Obviously the people in the US have a different view of what their money should be spent on compared to other nations or they vote for an alternative.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice.

--Jackney Sneeb

**Evil Baby** · 20th February 2004, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
I really don't care what the US spends its money on, I was just putting the link up for the hell of it. Obviously the people in the US have a different view of what their money should be spent on compared to other nations or they vote for an alternative.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That would be because there is not enough of a demand for that alternative or somebody would run on that premis. How many people in this world lust for power, and what more powerful position is there then the US president?

**Comrade** · 20th February 2004, 09:50 PM

Stupid people, money pumped into defense industries eventually finds its way back to consumers.

I don't think you people really appreciate how ungodly rich we are in the first place. Sure thirteen trillion dollars is a lot, but thats SIXTY years of the richest country in the world. Add up the money the government has wasted on less important things.

I'm sorry if you people are opposed to America using its army to secure democracy abroad (and if you wanna whine about oil, fine, oil, oil is what keeps this country running, stupids. Any threat to our oil supply is a threat against America), but that is regressing back into almost a Maginot mentality. If there's one thing that has been proven over and over by history, defense and reactionary decisions are not going to protect you.

Every time there has been a crisis involving one of America's enemies, it was because people who hate America thought America would not be able to effectively strike back. It is through all this money that we have kept our nation able to respond effectively.

Wake up. Having a big, powerful military is important. Even more so than that is having a big powerful military that others KNOW is big and powerful. And we are a rich enough country to afford it. America is RICH. 90% of the wealth of this country is controlled by 10% of the people, and yet, WE LIVE VERY WELL. Think about it.

I think more of you are intimidated by the big numbers than anything else.

We could also raise money to "feed the poor" or whatever by raising taxes, or eliminating the state government of some small state. Why don't we do that? For the same reason we don't get rid of our military.

Anyways, bye.

**eburchelli** · 20th February 2004, 09:57 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (STRATIOTES,)
["You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." --Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This statement has nothing to do with standing armies. It relates to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms.

The founding fathers were fearful of a standing army. That was one of two reasons for the 2nd Amendment. It gave the citizen militia (every able bodied male) the right to own weapons and be instantly available for defense of the nation.

Our founding fathers never envisioned that the US would someday fight on foreign shores. The idea was to protect ours from foreign invaders. We've come a long way, baby. We not only cruise the world looking for fights, but we open our borders to anyone.

**Evil Baby** · 20th February 2004, 10:02 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Comrade,)
Stupid people, money pumped into defense industries eventually finds its way back to consumers.

I don't think you people really appreciate how ungodly rich we are in the first place. Sure thirteen trillion dollars is a lot, but thats SIXTY years of the richest country in the world. Add up the money the government has wasted on less important things.

I'm sorry if you people are opposed to America using its army to secure democracy abroad (and if you wanna whine about oil, fine, oil, oil is what keeps this country running, stupids. Any threat to our oil supply is a threat against America), but that is regressing back into almost a Maginot mentality. If there's one thing that has been proven over and over by history, defense and reactionary decisions are not going to protect you.

Every time there has been a crisis involving one of America's enemies, it was because people who hate America thought America would not be able to effectively strike back. It is through all this money that we have kept our nation able to respond effectively.

Wake up. Having a big, powerful military is important. Even more so than that is having a big powerful military that others KNOW is big and powerful. And we are a rich enough country to afford it. America is RICH. 90% of the wealth of this country is controlled by 10% of the people, and yet, WE LIVE VERY WELL. Think about it.

I think more of you are intimidated by the big numbers than anything else.

We could also raise money to "feed the poor" or whatever by raising taxes, or eliminating the state government of some small state. Why don't we do that? For the same reason we don't get rid of our military.

Anyways, bye.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, because that money couldn't be spent on better things like cleaning your cities. Have you been to Buffalo lately? The place is dirty as hell. By spending that money elsewhere it still enables the money to go into the economy.

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world but that fact is the US spends $360 million + on its millitary whereas the closest nation to that, Russia spends $60 million. Last time I checked Russia was an ally and had far greater issues to deal with besides the US.

**Jackney Sneeb** · 20th February 2004, 10:16 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I do.

--Jackney Sneeb

**Jackney Sneeb** · 20th February 2004, 10:28 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That would be because there is not enough of a demand for that alternative or somebody would run on that premis. How many people in this world lust for power, and what more powerful position is there then the US president?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice wishful thinking. No, it's because there is only one ruling party. It is composed of two rival factions separated only by partisan rhetoric. When it comes down to actually making war, enforcing laws, the leaders of the two parties get together and generally do it consistent with what is good for politicians themselves, their friends, their corporate patrons, the bureaucracy, and their party faithful. They have no inclination whatsoever to bow to the wishes of the people, and when the vote goes against the interests of the rulers, they just get a judge to reverse the election, or simply ignore it. They will tolerate no serious alternative to their policy of mass extortion, war, and corruption.

--Jackney Sneeb

**Evil Baby** · 20th February 2004, 11:24 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

I don't think anybody here has an issue with the US having the largest army in the world . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I do.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry.

However I think it's fair to assume most don't have a problem, at least those allied with the US.

**Evil Baby** · 20th February 2004, 11:26 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

What alternative? No one running for office is offering them a choice.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That would be because there is not enough of a demand for that alternative or somebody would run on that premis. How many people in this world lust for power, and what more powerful position is there then the US president?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Nice wishful thinking. No, it's because there is only one ruling party. It is composed of two rival factions separated only by partisan rhetoric. When it comes down to actually making war, enforcing laws, the leaders of the two parties get together and generally do it consistent with what is good for politicians themselves, their friends, their corporate patrons, the bureaucracy, and their party faithful. They have no inclination whatsoever to bow to the wishes of the people, and when the vote goes against the interests of the rulers, they just get a judge to reverse the election, or simply ignore it. They will tolerate no serious alternative to their policy of mass extortion, war, and corruption.

--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions?

Why is there no real opposition?
Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.

**mlingley** · 21st February 2004, 12:03 AM

The public isn't exposed to any of these issues in the American media. If we are given a third party candidate the media pumps it into our heads that they are unelectable. They aren't able to participate in debates, and no real issues ever get discussed. Every channel on television pumps out the same garbage over and over again and basically brainwashes the public into getting behind either the Democrats or the Republicans. They are both equally corrupt and supported by corporations like Enron, GE, Halliburton, Ect...

GE owns NBC and is also one of the largest weapons manufacturers in the U.S. So it's in their best interest to propogate war.

The more things get centralized the worse it's going to get in the U.S.

**Jackney Sneeb** · 21st February 2004, 12:45 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)

Would you agree that it is because there is no real opposition to these two factions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Actually, there is always opposition to at least one or both of those two sub-cults. The only reason 80,000,000 armed Americans don't kick the bastards off the continent is because the propaganda is working to keep most of them squabbling amongst one another, rather than identifying their common enemy. Remember when the Cold War ended? Gee, the Soviet Union collapsed, and it had been (supposedly) the only remaining superpower that threatened world peace. Once it was gone, the sane thing to do would have been to drastically cut the armed forces and show the world that the US aren't the bad guys after all. Is that what happened? You know it's not. What changed when the Soviet Union collapsed? Nothing. What changed when Reagan took over from Carter, and Clinton took over from Bush, and Junior Bush took over from Clinton? Anything? Americans are arguing their fool heads off on television night after night, demanding change. Only a complete idiot would claim they don't want an alternative. Why isn't there any? Because the state is a gang of thugs and lawyers. Why the hell would anyone expect them to act any differently? Why would anyone expect them to allow alternatives?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Why is there no real opposition?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The state provides all the opposition. The state doesn't care whether one side or the other wins, as long as politicians get their cut, and the lawyers get lots of work. Gay marriage? The more laws they make regulating marriage, the more we need lawyers to intercede when we can't get along in our relationships. Make it illegal to burn the flag? Hooh hah, more court battles on TV! Drug war? Let's talk about ending it, and don't actually end it. Plenty of propaganda opportunities for the hucksters and TV pundits.

The sad fact is, the opposition outnumbers the state, and even the two cults that comprise the electorate. The state doesn't care. If we voted them out, they'd just get a judge to rule the election void. Remember, 1) propaganda and 2) force, the two methods of rule. Voting is the propaganda that "the pee-puhl" are in control. If that doesn't get the results the rulers want, they will override the voters, and eventually do away with voting altogether. As long as it produces money for politicians, they will let you think you're accomplishing something by allowing you to press the little buttons in the secret booth.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Evil Baby,)
Possibly because the American public does not wish to stray too far from what the two parties fight for.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Since the two parties supposedly want opposite things, the public must be schizo, according to that idea.

--Jackney Sneeb

User Tag List

Thread: The High Price of US Militarism

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions