|
|
Post by peterd on Jan 10, 2012 13:42:00 GMT -8
New US defense strategy is not as different as it initially appears On Thursday, January 5, President Barack Obama announced a new, leaner US defense strategy. DW spoke with America expert Johannes Thimm about how severe the envisioned budget cuts will actually be. www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15650268,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by RavenHawk on Jan 11, 2012 10:14:36 GMT -8
I’m all for making the military a bit leaner but Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that the military is too small. Our deterrent *IS* having a budget larger than the next 25 nations combined. That is what affords the world the relative peace it enjoys now. Our retreat will only encourage Iran, China, and others. What’s interesting is the phony concern over China. If we are really interested keeping an eye on China, then we would have a minimum of a million man army (not counting Navy, Marines, and Air Force). If the next threat is coming from a 100 million man army, it’s foolhardy to be cutting our military. Again, I agree that we need to cut the Defense budget but what is disingenuous is that where is the talk about cutting Entitlements? The more Entitlements we can phase out, the stronger this nation becomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by prospero on Jan 11, 2012 11:15:09 GMT -8
It is a dangerous world.
Although the actual figures are hard to pin down, best estimates indicate that over the course of the twentieth century somewhere around two hundred million people died as a result of war and democide.
Some will argue that large military forces around the world are more a cause of all the death rather than a solution.
I think it makes no difference, people seem to revel in murdering other humans and they don't need much of a reason to engage in the practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahnn on Jan 11, 2012 11:51:21 GMT -8
It is a dangerous world. Although the actual figures are hard to pin down, best estimates indicate that over the course of the twentieth century somewhere around two hundred million people died as a result of war and democide. Some will argue that large military forces around the world are more a cause of all the death rather than a solution. I think it makes no difference, people seem to revel in murdering other humans and they don't need much of a reason to engage in the practice. Some people do revel in it, others see it as a necessary evil. I still think there is a subtle moral path we can follow when engaged in war. But, unfortunately it doesn't make war any less horrific. Then again, when we add up those killed under regimes in China, North Korea, VietNam, Laos and Cambodia, Iraq under Saddam and others, war sometimes saves lives. It's a fine line but it's there, IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by prospero on Jan 11, 2012 12:57:21 GMT -8
It is a dangerous world. Although the actual figures are hard to pin down, best estimates indicate that over the course of the twentieth century somewhere around two hundred million people died as a result of war and democide. Some will argue that large military forces around the world are more a cause of all the death rather than a solution. I think it makes no difference, people seem to revel in murdering other humans and they don't need much of a reason to engage in the practice. Some people do revel in it, others see it as a necessary evil. I still think there is a subtle moral path we can follow when engaged in war. But, unfortunately it doesn't make war any less horrific. Then again, when we add up those killed under regimes in China, North Korea, VietNam, Laos and Cambodia, Iraq under Saddam and others, war sometimes saves lives. It's a fine line but it's there, IMHO Sure, the Commies and commie backed regimes were responsible for most of the democide (over a hundred millions worth) and our powerful military couldn't do much to stop it. As for the subtle moral path, I don't believe it should be so subtle. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahnn on Jan 11, 2012 13:14:01 GMT -8
Sure, the Commies and commie backed regimes were responsible for most of the democide (over a hundred millions worth) and our powerful military couldn't do much to stop it. As for the subtle moral path, I don't believe it should be so subtle. Our powerful military is not thwarted by inability. Our powerful military is only constrained by the subtle moral path we have set for ourselves and sometimes succeed in following. |
|
|
|
Post by prospero on Jan 11, 2012 13:34:20 GMT -8
Generally it is, and has been, more about interests than it is about morals.
You ever notice how all nations tend to bend their external conflicts into moral dilemmas?
You need people to fight for it make it a moral argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahnn on Jan 11, 2012 13:55:44 GMT -8
Generally it is, and has been, more about interests than it is about morals. By "it" you mean war? There is nothing moral about engaging in war. You said: "the Commies and commie backed regimes were responsible for most of the democide (over a hundred millions worth) and our powerful military couldn't do much to stop it." . My point was that our powerful military actually could have stopped it. There were others reasons why we didn't interfere in some areas militarily. It had nothing to do with lack of power. No, could you give me an example or two, please. |
|
|
|
Post by marinecpl on Jan 11, 2012 17:53:29 GMT -8
I’m all for making the military a bit leaner but Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that the military is too small. Our deterrent *IS* having a budget larger than the next 25 nations combined. That is what affords the world the relative peace it enjoys now. Our retreat will only encourage Iran, China, and others. What’s interesting is the phony concern over China. If we are really interested keeping an eye on China, then we would have a minimum of a million man army (not counting Navy, Marines, and Air Force). If the next threat is coming from a 100 million man army, it’s foolhardy to be cutting our military. Again, I agree that we need to cut the Defense budget but what is disingenuous is that where is the talk about cutting Entitlements? The more Entitlements we can phase out, the stronger this nation becomes. We cut corporate welfare, we cut all foreign aid, and we cut all the Congressional(House and Senate) waste. That's all we need to cut. The rest requires reform. Real reform. If we cut the above mentioned things, we will have plenty of money and we won't need to cut a penny from defense. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Jan 12, 2012 4:44:28 GMT -8
New US defense strategy is not as different as it initially appears On Thursday, January 5, President Barack Obama announced a new, leaner US defense strategy. DW spoke with America expert Johannes Thimm about how severe the envisioned budget cuts will actually be. www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15650268,00.html
Seriously.
Thanks for the read. |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Jan 31, 2012 8:03:02 GMT -8
New US defense strategy is not as different as it initially appears On Thursday, January 5, President Barack Obama announced a new, leaner US defense strategy. DW spoke with America expert Johannes Thimm about how severe the envisioned budget cuts will actually be. www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15650268,00.html
Seriously.
Thanks for the read.Appreciated. |
|
