. I 'm not going to say his name but here is a Liberal reply I saw%26gt;%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; ........."Redirect ALL money from the military sector to the science research and space exploration".............%26lt;%26lt;%26lt; First of all I would say how wonderful that would be to be able to do! Unfortunately its not realistic and would lead to Americas destruction .My question is : How many Liberals would agree with dismantling the US Military . I'm not taking shots at Liberals I would love to be proved wrong on this one!
Dangerous Liberal thinking??microsoft access
i see much conjecture, opinions, and views that do not have any supporting data sources with the exception of xxpat 1.
if one views history, you will find that each time we have a 'weak' military, we have been attacked (WWII).
i wish there was no need for war but as long as those in power want more or to keep what they have, we will have tyrants. what truly amazes me is how many liberals view America as the tyrant and the aggressor who is playing the bully on the world stage.
if America is so bad, why do millions and millions each year want to come here. are they smarter than the liberals? if liberals really think that America is so bad, why aren't they emigrating to a country who doesn't have a military or who doesn't participate in war of any kind? could it be that these countries are expecting and in some cases demanding the protection of the USA while bashing it?
the carters and Clinton's weakened our military and in both instances small, but effective tyrants waged war on us. the Iran hostage situation and 9/11 are direct results of the USA being considered weak and too timid for war, and we were! no attacks on our soil since then, doesn't that tell you anything?
Dangerous Liberal thinking??windows mobile 6 internet explorer
Isn't government spending like 90% of ALL its money on the military right now? Fool.
Maxx- The GDP isn't how much the government spends, but how much every person %26amp; every corporation (and the government) in the country EARNS COMBINED in a year you flippin moron.
And considering the richest 5% of Americans make up 65% of the US's GDP, I'd hardly say thats going to be spent on a wasteful pointless war!
By the way, no I'm NO fool- the war's conservatively estimated to cost around $2.5 TRILLION, which divided amongst 350 million tax paying americans = $71,429 per PERSON.
Now who's the idiot?? Do you earn that in a year? How about 2? I didn't think so.
Liberal thinking is usually always dangerous. Just look what the counter culture hippies of the 60's have become.
I'm a conservative Democrat; but most liberals who aren't extreme realize that there will always be a need for the military. One person with ridiculous ideas from any group doesn't represent the whole group.
The US spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, and 16 times as much as all our possible 'enemies' combined. And yet NO politician, of EITHER party seems to think this is quite enough! They all try to outdo each other on how much they'd like to increase the military budget.
All through the cold war we were told that about half our military spending was to prepare for an invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union marching through Poland. The invasion was all mapped out. We had bases in strategic areas. We had small 'tactical' nukes all ready (that was the source of the phrase 'more bang for the buck').
Yet when the Soviet Union failed, no politician seriously suggested we could now cut our military budget by half. Or by -anything-.
I'm about as liberal as anyone here, I guess, but even I don't think we should stop spending -any- money on military. But we could spend a lot less and spend it a lot more wisely. Instead of big, elaborate weapons systems that are useless for the way we fight today we could have a bit larger Army and we could train them to do 'nation building' and to fight guerrilla wars. Instead we keep preparing to fight WWII again, over and over, and use budget for big pork projects like the B2 bomber and Star Wars and tanks that are so expensive to run that the crews have to train in simulator.
Hmm. Interesting concept. However i think adding gold and silver currency back would also help in being able to downsize our military as well. Though putting more towards scientific research and space exploration is a good idea.
The liberal founders of our nation thought the US should not have a standing military, and that ad hoc militias would be sufficient for our defense. That's part of the rationale behind the Second Amendment. It quickly became apparent that the US would need a permanent military, so for the last 200 + years liberals have supported a strong military for our defense.
Liberals and conservatives in the US today differ on when to use the military. Is it the primary instrument of US foreign policy, as neoconservatives say, or is our military to be sent to a foreign war only as a last resort, as liberals say?.
Your quote from an unnamed liberal is a classic strawman argument.
You'd love to be proved wrong? lol, I suggest you stick with one dishonest statement in each "question."
I would rather redirect all money from social programs to the military. Just because we have the greatest military in world history, doesn't mean we should rest on our laurels...there are bigger, better weapons to develop
I am especially interested in space-based lasers, EMP weapons, low-yeild nukes, and the rail-gun concept
That is not liberal thinking to dismantling the military, every nation needs to protect itself, as it stands today anyone to suggest to dismantle our military today is not in touch with current events.
There is a place where people go beyond Conservative and Liberal thinking and enter the crazy zone, the poster that shall be unnamed has enter that zone.
Yes I am a liberal, I may disagree with your views, but I do not hate you for them.
Attention fools; the US spends 3.7% of its GDP on the military.
For all of you liberals out there that number is lower than 90%
You cannot be proved wrong. The Liberals would take the military spending down to zilch! The military budget is seriously not a big part of the budget, we need to continue research and development in technical and strategical areas of our defense. If we don't, we leave ourselves vulnerable and open to attack and take over.
Look what happened on 9/11 after the reduction of the military and intelligence agencies during the Clinton era.
President Bush was not in office long enough to have re-establish our national security.
The liberal neosocialists in this country would love to disband the military all together and surrender all to the first oppressor to come along...patent pacifism in this country is an insidious cancer to all who cherish freedom and liberty...they are not to be trusted.
I don't know how many liberals would agree with that plan but it would clearly be the destruction of America. We must have our military continue to be strong and armed. It is unconscionable that anyone from any party would believe that the military should be dismantled. We must continue to keep ahead of the"game" and educate our military in the newest and best procedures to protect our Country. Liberals think we need to try to "make nice" with our enemies who are out to destroy us and, as many are building up their nuclear capabilities, they continue to criticize our military spending. Science and space exploration are great but, not at the expense of our military necessities. Liberals who are so quick to bash the military and our need for arms and other military equipment and training need to grow a brain! We need to be sure to elect a President who will take the threats of enemy nations seriously and it needs to be someone who respects the military representing our people. Hillary Clinton just happens NOT to be that person.
Questions like this amuse me to tears.
First of all...I must make it very clear that I am neither a lib nor a con. My thinking is very different from the robots who allow themselves to be sucked into either one of these groups. There are more choices than the two that we are given by the descendants of our "founding fathers".
What amuses me about the question is that it assumes that a "liberal" is a person who is against war. The truth is...the pigs running the circus used Public Relations and skilled politics to entice the peace lovers into voting for the Democrats...but the wars never end...and the leaders of the "liberals" rake in lots of cash by promoting themselves to the peace lovers...but it is a sham.
The other assumption made by this loaded question is that all people in the military are right wing christian goody-two shoes robots who serve in the name of the Lord and want to conquer the globe in the name of jesus so that all of the little goody-two shoes snobs in the USA can continue living out their little fantasy life in which they condemn all other people on the planet as being evil enemies of America and Jesus and God.
Personally, I served in an infantry unit, and I can assure you that the MAJORITY of the dudes in my platoon were hard core dudes who liked their freedom and did not attend Sunday shool or give a rat's *** about conservative values.
Many of them were totally liberal in their thinking, and the reason that they enlisted was to be a member of a force that will stab, shoot, kick, and destroy anything and anybody who tries to force a blind ideology upon them. The military serves to protect our "liberty"! The word implies impartiality.
While the propaganda campaign that is promoted on our color TV sets is aimed at obtaining the right wing support for wars...it is indeed just PR! PR is propaganda...and conservatives in America have been suckered into believing that our military exists only for their benefit.
But anybody who lives within driving distance of one of the hardcore military bases knows that military dudes will screw your wife, your mom, and your daughter, simultaneously, over and over again, right in front of you...and THAT, my friend, is liberty! They'll cuss at you, they'll drink all your beer, they'll raid your refrigerator, and they'll screw your sister, your grandma, your preacher's wife, and any nuns that happen to walk into the room.
Your question is foolishly worded. To assume that "left wing" implies "peace loving hippie" is a totally blind view. Left wing people will drop bombs on you just as easily as right wingers...possibly more...and they'll continue to tax you after you're dead.
Like I said...I am an objective participant in this partisan puppet show...and from what I can tell...this country has been divided and conquered...we just don't know who has conquered it yet...but I imagine Big Brother will be showing his true colors one of these days...I wonder which party he'll lean toward?
Later,
Real Diehl
Sadly, you can't be proven wrong because the *true* liberal is a 'progressive' or social progressive or out-and-out socialist and needs to destroy or eviscerate the military so the sheeple have no means of resistance to any type of takeover.
A true parasite allows the host to live as long as possible while consuming it....
Apparently, and unfortunately, Mr Knowitall has never heard of or is ingenuously unaware of :
%26gt; the famous phrase 'peace dividend' (reference 1);
and
%26gt; (primarily) Mr. Clinton's famous decimation of the US military -
quote: ... between 1989 and 2001, the active Army declined from almost 800,000 troops to fewer than 500,000. The number of Navy ships decreased by more than half. And the Air Force went from 37 tactical wings to 20. end quote (ref2)
Guess he knows 'someofitall' or 'whatIwantyoutoknowatall.'
Glad I hadn't seen the wakefulone's post as I wrote; interesting - the mix of some good observations, some misdirection, and some emotion cloaking such vitriol is hard to find these days....
BTW (esp for lib dems):
Mr. Clinton had no use for the military and no regard for African suffering, specifically Rwanda (ref 3).
The federal gov't spent $644 Billion out of total FY 2007 spending of $2,784 Billion. In other words, the military was about 23% of the federal spending this last year.
10 years ago, during Clinton's term in office, the defense spending was $310 Billion out of total FY 1997 spending of $1,601. The military was eating up 19% of our budget then.
Not a big difference considering we are conducting military occupations in two countries.
Vajradha - According to the IRS, the richest 5% are earning 33% of the nation's income, but paying 57% of the taxes. So when you break down who is going to be paying for the war, it's not distributed evenly per person. It's those same richest 5% that are going to be paying for over half of the war's cost.
i would reduce the military to minimal and support the world democracy called the UN ...
No comments:
Post a Comment