Can we still afford to be world’s policeman?
When the Founding Fathers commissioned the federal government “to provide for the common defense,” I’m not sure they envisioned “common” in terms of the entire planet. But that’s clearly how things have evolved.
Today, the United States spends as much or more on “defense” as the rest of the world combined, and a lot of that money — maybe even a majority of it — is spent defending areas that are well outside our national borders. (At last count, we maintain more than 800 military bases in other countries.)
We have become the world’s policeman, and it is increasingly a solo act. Our military allies in Europe, for example, are collectively just as rich as we are, but they spend relatively little of their wealth defending themselves because we have been so eager to handle the job for them. The notable exception to that rule has been Great Britain, which still fields a credible military and is the only ally to commit troops in any real number in support of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But that’s ending now too. Earlier this month, the British government announced a major retrenchment that includes defense. Britain’s new coalition government is cutting defense spending by 8 percent over the next four years, reducing military personnel by 17,000 and civilian defense personnel by 25,000. It has postponed its nuclear submarine program, and while it does plan to finish and field one aircraft carrier, the ship won’t actually be outfitted with planes until at least 2020. Britain’s heavy artillery will be cut by a third, and its tank forces will be slashed in half. For the first time since WWII, no British forces will be stationed on continental Europe.
Of course, the same budgetary pressures hitting Britain are being felt on this side of the Atlantic as well. Even conservatives are acknowledging that the Pentagon can’t be immune to future spending cuts, although it’s hard to tell what such talk really means.
While celebrating Britain’s overall budget cuts, for example, American conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation have been harshly critical of its cutbacks in defense spending. To many Republicans, and probably some Democrats too, “cutting back on defense” means holding budget growth to 3 or 4 percent a year instead of 6 or 7 percent. And many on the right aren’t ready to accept even that, arguing instead that U.S. defense spending must be increased significantly to meet our commitments.
The truth is, we cannot wring significant savings out of the Pentagon unless we accompany those cuts with a fundamental rethinking of our role in the world. If we intend to remain the world’s policeman, we have no choice but to continue to spend enormous amounts of money doing so. Trying to play that role without the resources needed to pull it off would end in disaster.
But as our British friends understand quite well, the bottom-line, long-term question is whether we can afford it. History suggests that it is impossible to sustain global military dominance without a comparable economic advantage to back it up, and the days when we were the world’s unchallenged economic superpower seem to be behind us. It’s not a good sign when we’re funding our military in part with money borrowed from China, at this point our biggest competitor.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
180 comments Add your comment
TnGelding
October 29th, 2010
10:07 am
NO!
Joe
October 29th, 2010
10:07 am
”It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford ‘Nuff said.
kitty
October 29th, 2010
10:07 am
We can’t afford it, pure and simple. We couldn’t afford Iraq and we can’t afford Afghanistan. The latter has turned into policing, not military. We are not going to beat the Taliban. They are too entrenched into the local population. Time to stop defending the world and just take care of ourselves. If they want freedom let them fight for it just as we did.
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:10 am
Nope
Paulo977
October 29th, 2010
10:14 am
Defending the world? From whom? If the world only really knew whom they had to defend themselves from !!!! Oh brother!
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:15 am
Crike, we can’t afford 1/3 (!!!!) of our Federal Budget. We can’t afford the current SS, Medicare, and bloated discretionary. We have to take care of our poorest and defend our country. Everyone else should be responsible for taking care of themselves.
Jay, to further address your point. We do need to realize what happens when / if we leave a power vacuum. China will fill the void. I don’t feel good about that.
But the only solution I can see is saving up our economic and military “ammunition” for the day when we may have to contend with that.
We should have 10k troops in Afghanistan. South Korea should be ready to take care of themselves by now. We don’t need troops in Europe any more, except for a decent number in Germany to fend off the always gnarly Russia and mitigate any need for a significant German army. Time to shrink. But beware China.
Normal
October 29th, 2010
10:19 am
If we as a country, and most especially a soldier, are paid to be the worlds policemen, then I’m all for it. The UN wants us to clean up a mess in Somilia? All they have to do is cough up the money for logistics and labor…especially labor (the Troops).
Independent
October 29th, 2010
10:21 am
No, we cannot afford nor should we be the world’s policemen.
Step 1 is to no longer fund the UN.
Step 2 is to use Obama’s deep experience as a “community organizer” to move their headquarters to another community.
Step 3 is to start policing our own borders.
Randalph on the Right
October 29th, 2010
10:23 am
Of course we can! To fund it we should charge a tax on the world and begin Pax Americana.
Peadawg
October 29th, 2010
10:24 am
“Can we still afford to be world’s policeman?”
Nope, we have too many problems of our own to take of.
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:25 am
Jay, I’m anything but an isolationist. But our military is stretched too far. In particular the Army, it seems to me.
StJ
October 29th, 2010
10:26 am
The US and China will be at war within 20 years. And in the meantime, the Democrats want to cut off money for military R&D (or military anything, for that matter), while China spares no expense and pays cash for theirs.
Next time you buy a product “made in China”, think about what that money will eventually be used for.
Sleep tight.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:26 am
Can we afford to not be the world’s policeman?
Nuke proliferation must be controlled, Oil is
vital to our existence, China has new and
diverse intentions and they are still hardcore
Communists, Russia rumbles with international
ambitions..
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:26 am
A little humor….
Referring to ex-CNN talk-show host Rick Sanchez, who was fired for calling Jon Stewart a bigot and suggesting that Jews run CNN in a satellite radio interview, Stewart said that if he had a question he wanted to ask Obama but wouldn’t on air, it would be: “Do my people really control the media, and if so why am I still on basic cable?”
TnGelding
October 29th, 2010
10:28 am
China has no desire to go to war with us or anyone else. They’ve been there and suffered the horrors. Wish I could say the same for us.
professional skeptic
October 29th, 2010
10:29 am
Absolutely not. The intentional, systematic downward pressure on Amercans’ incomes by their corporate overlords means we no longer have the tax base to support it.
Only the profligate spending of borrowed money will keep us in the role of the world’s police force.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:29 am
Sleep well tonight your Air Force is awake.
Soothsayer
October 29th, 2010
10:30 am
Jay, the Military Industrial Complex/Materiel Suppliers cartel is of the cartels that controls Congress and the Presidency. If you think they’re going to allow Congress to do anything that reduces their amount of swag you are sorely mistaken.
As I’ve said on this blog many, many times why we are war, and winning the war are not important questions. You’ll notice that you very seldom, if ever, hear those questions. No, the important thing is simply that we ARE in a war. Especially if the populace can be led to believe that there is a real “enemy” and that we are being “attacked.”
Then, they are less likely to complain as their country is sucked dry.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:30 am
TnGelding 10:28 Tell that to Taiwan.
Mick
October 29th, 2010
10:31 am
It’s time to pull back and invest that money and technology into space exploration. Cut 200 billion out of defense and pay down the debt.
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
10:32 am
Speaking of policemen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741&ps=cprs
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:32 am
“Can we still afford to be world’s policeman?”
In a word, no.
md
October 29th, 2010
10:33 am
I second what Normal said. Let them now what we are going to charge for the services and if they don’t want to pay so be it – we leave.
I’d start by abolishing NATO – the most one sided “alliance” in existence…………
Union
October 29th, 2010
10:33 am
nope. let the un handle it!
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:33 am
Mick
October 29th, 2010
10:31 am
Not a bad idea, but I don’t know if the public is patient enough anymore to wait for the “return on the buck” you’d get out of funding space exploration.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:34 am
Union
October 29th, 2010
10:33 am
Let the UN handle it? That’s basically saying let the USA handle it.
NowReally
October 29th, 2010
10:35 am
No, the return on investment for policing the world is too LOW. We need to focus on education, the environment, technology, economics and progress in this country.
md
October 29th, 2010
10:37 am
After NATO, I’d abolish the good ole boy club – the UN.
Worthless waste of money………
Soothsayer
October 29th, 2010
10:38 am
Jay, we still can if we outsource the military to China!
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:38 am
md
October 29th, 2010
10:37 am
I disagree. I’d abolish the UN first.
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
10:39 am
Huh….well…
NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.
The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.
In other words our tax money going to private companies.
Kamchak
October 29th, 2010
10:40 am
I’m not sure it’s about being the world’s policeman.
I think it’s about us being the world’s arms dealers.
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:41 am
Bosch – legalize marijuana and I’m sure there’ll be plenty of room.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:41 am
When a Clinton is UN Secretary General, They will take over
the Job. BTW would you rather be President of the USA or
Supreme Ayatollah of 1.5 billion Muslims?
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:42 am
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:41 am
I thought Obama was both?
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:43 am
So he’s still reliving his 2004 compaign?
“Sen. Kerry blasts ‘period of know-nothingism’…”
TaxPayer
October 29th, 2010
10:45 am
But if we does away with all them military bases all over the globe, we’ll be eliminating jobs. Million-dollar-man jobs!
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
10:46 am
“are paid to be the worlds policemen”
I’ve said that too. I don’t have a problem being the world’s police, but let the countries that want us to protect them be prepared to PAY for it.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:46 am
Leg Lamp 10:42 Possibly, whether he is aware or not.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:47 am
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
10:46 am
Absolutely. And I would have started by diverting some of Iraq’s oil to pay for that CF.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:49 am
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
10:46 am
I don’t have a problem being the world’s police, but let the countries that want us to protect them be prepared to PAY for it.
—————————————————————–
Unfortunately we have to protect those countries that don’t
always want our ‘protection’.
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
10:51 am
“And I would have started by diverting some of Iraq’s oil to pay for that CF.”
Can’t agree with that. If we’d not invaded there’d be nothing for the oil to pay for. That was OUR F’UP, it’s OUR expense.
TaxPayer
October 29th, 2010
10:52 am
Well, at least we have not had to send our military into the Gulf of Mexico to protect BP’s oil interests there yet from those angry shrimpers. I guess the shrimpers have found ways of dealing with their slick hauls that don’t end up hurting their livlihoods although “pre-oiled shrimp” just doesn’t appeal, as a marketing scheme, to me.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
10:52 am
Perhaps we should return to the spoils of war reward
system and maybe the ’spoils’ system of government.
Winner take All.
Halftrack
October 29th, 2010
10:52 am
IF we can ever get our politicians to come their senses and write a budget, etc. and give us a military to protect us and STOP giving our money away to people who don’t support the principles of the US, we won’t be able to stop being a world policeman in name only. We can’t control our own border or we’re going to have drug cartels, and Mexican thugs to control our border until it reaches S. Dakota. They may stop due to the harsh winters and leave a big swath between us and Canada. Someone else will then be in control and tell us how to Police.
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
10:54 am
“Unfortunately we have to protect those countries that don’t
always want our ‘protection’”
I don’t see it. If they don’t want us there, we can leave. If they change their minds, we can move back and they can start paying.
I’m not talking about humanitarian protection…that’s a different ballgame. I’m talking about viable, active countries with functioning economies. They want the protection, they can pay for it.
Atlas Shrugging
October 29th, 2010
10:54 am
The quote below says it all…
“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without”.
Dwight D Eisenhower
retired early
October 29th, 2010
10:55 am
I have to laugh when the GOP credits Reagan with outspending the Russians into bankruptcy to win the Cold War.
That unnecessary massive military buildup is exactly when our budget deficit woes truly began.
All these years later and still no one has the guts to even trim a little off the edges.
The military budget should be cut atleast in half over the next 10 years. That is something we all should be able to agree on. But as long as these congressman like our own Saxby and Johnny who want to “protect jobs”, we will continue to have this, in essence, federal job program. Why do you think they build one type of fighter jet in 40 different states.
Tea praters, that is something you can sink your teeth into.
That huge commitment to defense has really cost us our place in the world. From healthcare to education, to infrastructure.
All of our real budget problems began there, with all time greatest GOP leader, Ronald Reagan.
Anyone who does not believe it can google “Federal budgets year by year” or from one president to another.
FinnMcCool
October 29th, 2010
10:55 am
We don’t need bases in Italy or Germany or Japan.
i could see keeping our bases in Korea but that’s about it.
Granny Godzilla
October 29th, 2010
10:56 am
Nope.
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:56 am
“So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1
So. Liberals are never fear-mongers. Right. And Krugman is an economist? Right.
He’s a chicken…. or turkey, gobble gobble.
Tychus Findlay
October 29th, 2010
10:56 am
Rather than spend our taxpayers money defending the interests of other countries, maybe it’s time we hunker down and invest in domestic missile defense programs. The last war in modern history has been fought on American soil, our greatest threats come from ICBMs and dirty bombs.
Let the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket.
Mick
October 29th, 2010
10:57 am
leg
The only bad consequence of cutting defense is eliminating more jobs in this already hurting economy. Instead of building more war planes we could try focusing on more space vehicles. No matter, one group or another will be getting the axe..
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
10:58 am
retired early
October 29th, 2010
10:55 am
Not disagreeing that the military budget could stand to be cut, but you kind of lost me when you mentioned “healthcare to education, to infrastructure”. The waste and mismanagement in these three is incredible.
Doggone/GA
October 29th, 2010
11:00 am
“He’s a chicken…. or turkey, gobble gobble.”
He gave his opinion…just as you have done.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:02 am
We should expand the Monroe Doctrine under the
guise of the Drug War. Invade Mexico, then Central
and South America. Make them states and our
Borders will be secure. Probably cheaper than
building a fence. Then Canada, lots of pretty
women there, at least according to their exports.
One Continent, under God, with Liberty and Justice
for All.
Jefferson
October 29th, 2010
11:02 am
Depends on if there is a buck to be made. (and who controls the defense contracts)
Randalph on the Right
October 29th, 2010
11:03 am
So, what is the female male birth ratio in Chinar?
3-1? What happens when them Chinarman don’t have girls to marry? Hmmmmmm
“400 million screaming Chinamen”
“there’s a billion chinese”
“there were…”
Air Force Colonel throws whiskey in fire
Red Dawn
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:06 am
Birth of the Tea Party. This is interesting. And there’s some definite ironies in here.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:06 am
Mick
October 29th, 2010
10:57 am
I understand what you’re saying but I see the difference as this – building more war planes is the status quo. We’ve become conditioned to that. Just excercise the next year of the contract for the military’s aircraft. The aerospace jobs are high paying and it doesn’t rock the boat. Now, try promoting to the American public, and Congress, a new and expensive space initiative. Go ahead and promise it will be funded from cuts in existing programs. The general public, under the present debt circumstances, won’t believe the funds will come from military cuts and would have a fit, those in the aerospace industry who would fear for their jobs would have a fit, and consequently Congress would begin posturing about the wrecklessness and carelessness of such an endeavor, blaming the presiding POTUS based on party lines.
Space exploration is a great idea, but selling it to the public in the present hostile arena would be almost impossible.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:07 am
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:02 am
So you’d endorse us moving towards Obama’s “57 states”?
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:09 am
jm
October 29th, 2010
10:56 am
Let’s get through Halloween before we start talking Thanksgiving turkey. There’s a loooooot of chocolate to be consumed this weekend.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:09 am
Congressmen should be required to be the first
space explorers, it’s the only way we will ever
get rid of some of them.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:10 am
If Nancy Pelosi were the rep for my district I might want to stay high as well.
“WORLD SERIES HIGH: Rangers player Josh Hamilton: ‘I could smell weed in the outfield’… “
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:12 am
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:09 am
Harry Reid may soon be out of a job. Maybe he could lead the way? Nah, probably not. The spaceship would keep circling left.
md
October 29th, 2010
11:12 am
“So. Liberals are never fear-mongers. Right”
I always find it comical that both sides do it yet are always pointing the finger the other way……
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:12 am
The Leg Lamp is a “major award”….
October 29th, 2010
11:07 am
————————————————————
The Prez is a time traveler from a time after my plan
has been executed.
retired early
October 29th, 2010
11:13 am
Leg lamp
My point is, Compared to the other industrialized countries who have Mass transit, health care etc. America does not have the “luxury” of prioritized spending on whatever our citizens agree to invest in. We currently do not have any $$$ and therefore, do not have the ability to fund these things due to the massive military budget which started during Reagan’s tenure.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
11:15 am
The Leg Lamp is a “major award”….
October 29th, 2010
11:12 am
————————————————
Poor Harry, he was born with a silver foot in his —.
larry
October 29th, 2010
11:15 am
We should not have troops except in Korea, Iraq and Afganaistan. Every where else , we should bring our troops home a close the bases. Or sell the bases to the country of origin.
larry
October 29th, 2010
11:16 am
“troops home AND close the bases “
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:18 am
Jay – you really should be busy outing Mr. Krugman as a fear mongerer…..
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:22 am
I have a headache after reading this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303362404575580273655487494.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
11:24 am
@retired early – “I have to laugh when the GOP credits Reagan with outspending the Russians into bankruptcy to win the Cold War.”
Sorry, but I do believe that; I just think we didnt do the other half of the job, which was to withdraw from Europe when that threat was eliminated. The French are rioting in the streets over social programs, safe in the knowledge that we will protect them if they cry to us again in this century. I agree with the idea of letting them foot the bill if we are over their. Same with Saudi Arabia. They have more than enough cash to pay for us to protect them from their neighbors. I still laugh at the left because they dont talk anymore about Iraq being “all about the oil”. Obviously, it wasnt. But we should have taken a portion of their oil to pay for the expenditure of the US taxpayer to get Saddam out of power.
I am a student of WWII and have been for 40+ years. I have always believed that isolationism was a bad way to go, due to some of the lessons that taught us. But in todays world of ICBM’s, I dont think this applies any longer. Missile technology, remote drones, etc make this an anachronism.
What does concern me greatly, is that the Chinese Army is fronted by many of their so called capatalistic companies as a way of maintaining their funding, from all I can find out. They have developed the first blending of communism and capitalism, that seems to make their population happy (for the most part) while keeping the Communists in power. I think we will be in trouble economically and militarily in the long run with them. They simply outnumber us, and we keep letting our technology go to them (think Lorimar and the Clinton Administration).
I think it seems people on both sides of the isle agree on this, but the politicians in DC dont. Government contracts mean jobs. Lockheed gets contracts for planes we dont need to a) keep the economy humming, and B) to make sure needed skills dont retire and production lines are kept open IN CASE needed. I dont think we can continue this way much longer. However, we need to keep all of the industrial base we can, and start having incentives for heavy industry again, because if we are attacked or threatened we dont have enough industry to ramp up on a war footing…
Scary decisions all around, arent they?
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:28 am
marky mark – “the other half” was actually ending the nanny state here in the US. Not withdrawing from Europe.
But I will agree with you on China. We have no business doing business with a country like China (an undemocratic, dishonest, communist-statist-capitalist country). All American companies should be told to relocate operations outside of China within 5 to 10 years. There are plenty of less vicious options: India, Vietnam, Africa, Indonesia, Thailand, etc etc etc
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:29 am
On the brights side. We’ve found a “precocious galaxy cluster”. Huh?
Precocious Galaxy Cluster Identified by Chandra
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101026132647.htm
Bubba Bob
October 29th, 2010
11:29 am
Defense will have to be cut along with all the other big programs.
We currently have a $13T debt and $100T in unfunded liabilities. The $100T is 4x the average amount of assets per citizen.
stands for decibels
October 29th, 2010
11:30 am
No. But I don’t see any fundamental change to the status quo happening until there is no horrific political downside for anyone to propose such things for discussion purposes.
as it stands now, well, does Zell Miller and “Spitballs” ring a bell?
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:31 am
Um, liberals. I’m not a global warming denier. But people (you liberals) should realize the science is very imperfect. See article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830094922.htm
As an example, science just figured out the framework they’ve been using for “evaporation” for 130 years is incorrect. Ooops. And we think the universe is so simple….
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101020084149.htm
BlahBlahBlah
October 29th, 2010
11:33 am
Jay is 100% right on this one. We either need to send those countries an invoice every year for services rendered, or scale back dramatically. Let them decide – either pay up or we leave.
Hillbilly Deluxe
October 29th, 2010
11:33 am
Can we still afford to be world’s policeman?
No but it’s not a situation that can be remedied overnight. Europe and others, should be phased into paying their way.
md
October 29th, 2010
11:35 am
“What does concern me greatly, is that the Chinese Army is fronted by many of their so called capatalistic companies as a way of maintaining their funding, from all I can find out.”
Is a bit ironic that we are going broke while funding 2 militaries …………… ours and theirs
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:36 am
md – indeed
stands for decibels
October 29th, 2010
11:37 am
I still laugh at the left because they dont talk anymore about Iraq being “all about the oil”. Obviously, it wasnt.
Not *all*, of course, but mostly, sure. Are you seriously disputing that?
if so, I’ll be happy to trace back the history you seem to have forgotten. Shall we start with our decision to allow Kuwait oil tankers to be reflagged as American vessels?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1372550
stands for decibels
October 29th, 2010
11:38 am
No but it’s not a situation that can be remedied overnight.
I doubt anyone would seriously suggest such a thing. For the sake of our own economy, you can’t just suddenly demolish what amounts to an enormous jobs program.
Thank God We Escaped!
October 29th, 2010
11:43 am
Jawja Goobers – your just desserts are on the way!
Work on your flexibility exercises, ’cause very soon you will certainly be bending over to kiss your a** goodbye. Policemen of the World Horror Show!
You are well and truly effed. And the same for your kids and their kids. If you had a clue how effed you really were, you would be puking and crying instead of posting and sniping. Lube it well as the pain will be severe.
Lots of weeping and teeth-gnashing to come…
Ooh La Lah!
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
11:43 am
sorry SFD, but we will have to disagree on that. If we wanted the oil, would could have let 60 % of the country go to hell in a civil war while we repaired the pipelines and used out troops to guard them while we pumped what we wanted. You can get me examples if you want, but the bottom line to me is we didnt get crap for oil vs. our expenditure there. And we could have if that was what we wanted….
Now the FIRST Gulf war? I will agree with you totally on that one….
md
October 29th, 2010
11:45 am
Iraq and oil?
Doesn’t matter……….take the oil out of the equation and what does our economy currently look like???? Sure as heck wouldn’t be better, even deducting the cost of the war.
Michael H. Smith
October 29th, 2010
11:45 am
Just thinking to myself out loud… WW I-Wilson (D) WW II-Roosevelt (D) Korea-Truman (D) Vietnam-Kennedy/Jonhson (D) Iraq I and II Bush/Bush (R)
…To many Republicans, and probably “some” Democrats too?
I like the way Comrade Jay “sums” things up when reflecting on being the world’s police force. LOL!
Jimmy62
October 29th, 2010
11:46 am
No, we can’t. Much of it was very good for the world when we could afford it, but now we can’t. George Washington did warn of the danger of entangling alliances, which are great till you can’t afford them, or they force you to do things against your own interests.
So yes, as a Tea Party guy, I think it’s time for a reset on our foreign affairs.
carlosgvv
October 29th, 2010
11:50 am
It has been many years now since we have been able to aford to be the world’s policeman. We still practice this because of a chauvinist beleif that our political system is the best and needs to be imposed on others whether they want it or not. Only when we realize we are just another country and not God’s gift to the rest of the world will things began to be as they should in this regard.
stands for decibels
October 29th, 2010
11:50 am
Now the FIRST Gulf war? I will agree with you totally on that one….
Well, we’re sort of arguing semantics at this point then—the second gulf war never happens without the first. Once we’d put ourselves in the region over oil and we intervened militarily, our obligations seeped well beyond the mere protection of oil fields for oil producers.
@@
October 29th, 2010
11:51 am
Britain’s new coalition government is cutting defense spending by 8 percent over the next four years, reducing military personnel by 17,000 and civilian defense personnel by 25,000.
Goin’ Rummy, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJLSK4jK7g&feature=channel
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:53 am
Can we still afford SS and Medicare for everyone? If only consensus were as clear as to Jay’s question. But the underlying issue is the same. And the obvious answer is: NO.
AmVet
October 29th, 2010
11:55 am
As always, even the more cogent of the neo-cons are always a few decades behind learning their lessons.
And the more myopic and intransigent non-conservatives STILL posit for MORE military spending! And MORE corporate welfare for the hopelessly diseased DOD contractors.
Notwithstanding that we already spend as much on the war machine as the rest of the planet combined.
Remember how the War Always boys went ballistic when Clinton didn’t spend enough to suit the chickenhawks?
And it is ironic that these loons who forever aver that the Uncle Sam can do nothing right, give a carte blanche to arguablely the most corrupt, inept and wasteful organization therein – the Dept. of Defense.
Oh the joy it must be, to be a capricious and craven con living in that parallel reality…
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:56 am
Thank God We Escaped!
October 29th, 2010
11:43 am
WTF?
Ron Reagan
October 29th, 2010
11:57 am
We have to afford it. Otherwise, the Russians will take over!
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:57 am
Jay, tired of sending transfer payments to those needy countries requesting defense? Geee. You sound positively Republican.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
11:58 am
Thank God We Escaped!
October 29th, 2010
11:43 am
AmVet
October 29th, 2010
11:55 am
Here, guys, let me handle the introduction.
Thank God We Escaped, AmVet……AmVet, Thank God We Escaped.
jm
October 29th, 2010
11:58 am
Leg Lamp 11:56 – someone needed to say that.
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
11:59 am
“And the more myopic and intransigent non-conservatives STILL posit for MORE military spending! And MORE corporate welfare for the hopelessly diseased DOD contractors.”
AmVet has always had such a great way with words. Pure poetry.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
12:02 pm
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
11:59 am
Yep, he would have been huge back in the beatnik days. Spewing his prose in a coffee shop, people snapping their fingers in approval……
@@
October 29th, 2010
12:03 pm
I would just like to say that the American GI (Government Issued) is the best of the best.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
Thank God We Escaped, the Asylum called. They will hold
your place until 1:00 pm. If you are not back they will give it
to someone named ‘The Leg Lamp is a “major award”….
Paulo977
October 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
larry
Close the bases? What, and start dismantling the military Industrial Complex ????? Will never happen!
jm
October 29th, 2010
12:04 pm
Is the EPA going to start regulating water vapor, since it’s 4x more powerful than CO2 as far as greenhouse effect goes? Just asking. May put a dent in my gardening plans…. sucks for the oceans too… just wait until the EPA calls up Poseiden: Here’s your $8 Trillion global warming bill, please stop evaporating the oceans….
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101020084149.htm
Just sayin. Carbon tax is ok with me if its levied on imports too though. Good luck with that little scheme though. Lessee, this widget was made in the Guangdong province in China, which has a coal plant that runs at 65% efficiency, and it was shipped by rail on a diesel train to Shanghai, put on a boat with electric cranes, shipped by ocean freighter to LA. Carbon tax: $0.59. Right.
USMC DAWG
October 29th, 2010
12:05 pm
Good Article, Jay
I saw first hand how countries that we give money to only put up with us for the $$$$$$$$$$$$.
I can’t say I blame them as we naturally overstep sometimes. However, where we probably disagree is that in order to pull back, we have to seal the borders. You can’t have it both ways. Part of our mission overseas is to know what our enemies are up to OVERTHERE before they get OVER HERE.
But I definitely AGREE (not yelling, just stressing the point) with you. I furthermore believe we should decrease ALL foreign aid by 50% across the board.
This link of USMC General Smedley Butler is a little long but I think you will like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
12:06 pm
“POLL: O’Donnell cuts opponent’s lead in half… ”
Guess she must have learned how to twitch her nose and create a poll.
Rightwing Troll
October 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
“Or in the same way as watching the Obama administration crash and burn (predicted by so many of us) over the last two years.”
Yep ya’ll certainly called that one…
Now here’s my prognostication:
This little sanctimonious power grab you tards are salivating over will be a huge disaster and a collosal failure. You’ve probably convinced the hate baggers and tea tards to give you the keys back before we’ve even been able to get the car towed out of the ditch, and you have no plan whatsoever to get it out of the ditch yourselves… (except the same plan that drove us into the ditch to begin with)
I can’t wait to start rooting for failure, Nov 3 can’t be here fast enough…
jm
October 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
Um. One point to think about. If we could pull our health care costs in line (somehow) with those in the rest of the world, we could afford a military 2.5 times the military we currently have without any reduction in GDP. Or we could save the money, let it drop to the bottom line, and store it up for popping China when the need will arise.
md
October 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
“We have to afford it. Otherwise, the Russians will take over!”
Even snarky remarks may hold a bit of truth. I’d hazard a guess that there are many within Russia that remember vividly that they “lost”. And they have no problem what so ever in supplying the likes of Iran and Venezuela. One must remember they are also in the arms game……..
Which I find kind of comical when folks bitch about that – someone somewhere is going to supply the arms – might as well be us.
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:08 pm
SFD…I think we are on the same page….
Amvet…I am confused….you just came on here and railed against conservatives…but my reading of todays blog is that we were all more or less on the same page….not sure why you took this tact…..
Paul
October 29th, 2010
12:09 pm
It all starts with asking “what are our vital national security interests” followed by “how do we defend them?”
Our interest in the middle east is primarily oil. We fought for years against higher miles per gallon standards for our vehicle fleet and only recently updated them and are now addressing heavy vehicles. We took meager steps at conservation. We still have no national energy policy, instead avoiding exploiting our homeland resources – such as natural gas – while we spend billions to subsidize energy users like ethanol.
Then the Secretary of Defense launches efforts to cut back, such as eliminating Joint Forces Command and even Sen Webb of VIrginia comes out in opposition. Dems and Reps will paint any effort at cutbacks that affect their districts as weakening America and other such rhetorical BS.
We could phase in cuts – not reductions in outyear growth, but cuts in the current baseline, over a couple years and then phase in further cuts. But the corporations that build the systems and provide the services, as well as the middle class workers who think welfare applies only to other people, will fight it all the way.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:12 pm
The Earth is bipolar.
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
12:12 pm
Rightwing Troll
October 29th, 2010
12:07 pm
“I can’t wait to start rooting for failure,”
Start? Shoot, you probably mastered that emotion during W’s eight years.
Independent
October 29th, 2010
12:13 pm
Now that they’ve found the “liberal gene”, we could clone the liberals and turn them loose on the rest of the world. Flowers, rainbows, and unicorns for everyone.
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:14 pm
Barking Frog….that may be the single most profound thought ever posted on an AJC blog.
md
October 29th, 2010
12:15 pm
“Our interest in the middle east is primarily oil. We fought for years against higher miles per gallon standards for our vehicle fleet and only recently updated them and are now addressing heavy vehicles. We took meager steps at conservation. We still have no national energy policy…”
Well maybe, just maybe the dems would like to create a big gov’t bureaucracy to solve the problem………and we can call it the DOE.
md
October 29th, 2010
12:20 pm
For all that insist on texting, etc while driving, these photos are for you:
http://www.streetlegaltv.com/news/suburban-spears-itself-on-guardrail/
The Leg Lamp is a "major award"....
October 29th, 2010
12:20 pm
Now thie would be a breath of fresh air…
“END OF CAMELOT: Last Kennedy Seat In Congress Could Fall to GOP… “
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:21 pm
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:14 pm
marky mark
Barking Frog….that may be the single most profound thought ever posted on an AJC blog
————————————————–
Unfortunately, like religion and science, at my most profound, I’m
just a little silly.
@@
October 29th, 2010
12:22 pm
Paul:
But the corporations that build the systems and provide the services, as well as the middle class workers who think welfare applies only to other people, will fight it all the way.
That ^^^ comment brought a visual of a snake eating its own tail.
USMC DAWG
October 29th, 2010
12:23 pm
One other point that I think is relevant:
If you want us to scale back across the globe militarily, you also have to wake up to the fact that “our hands are tied” here in the US with regard to oil exploration and nucular(I knew you libs would like my pronunciation) energy. As Americans, we can drill for oil in a smarter manner. But you have to allow (smart) drilling in Alaska where there’s oil or else we are involved more overseas.
You cannot have it both ways. I think that is where many of us disagree.
Nice Guy
October 29th, 2010
12:24 pm
Bosch – “AmVet has always had such a great way with words. Pure poetry. ”
You should have been taught at an early age to not feed the bears.
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
If we loose silly, life will suck. In fact, about now, Moe is looking better as a write-in for governor, Curley for lt governor, and Larry for insurance commisioner. Shemp needs to stay unemployed
jm
October 29th, 2010
12:27 pm
USMC – I’m not a lib. I’m more for nuclear than more oil drilling. Some estimates on Alaskan oil have been revised down to 1/10th’ the previous estimates of available oil. Nuclear is better. For now.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:27 pm
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
—————————————————-
I believe you have described the current ticket.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:31 pm
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:25 pm
——————————————————–
As the Democratic candidate for governor, Shemp will
probably remain unemployed.
marky mark
October 29th, 2010
12:33 pm
Shemp is rich….he will be all right…and he has cows and grandchildren to tend…
Just sayin
October 29th, 2010
12:34 pm
Domestic drilling and nuclear energy in the interest of national security or losing middle class jobs when cutting back on defense tie the libs into knots they cannot escape.
USMC DAWG
October 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
jm, I agree with you. But we still have vast oil assets across our country to use for the transitional period from fossil fuels to alternative fuels.
I just used oil exploration in Alaska as an example.
There is no reason for the French kicking our arse in Nuclear.
I’ll admit when the right is wrong, but few want to admit that the Left has desimated our leadership with regard to energy.
But I just wanted to make the point that we have to become more self-reliant if we want to scale back overseas. I think it is a “no brainer”.
Nancy and Harry
October 29th, 2010
12:40 pm
NO
Wondering ?
October 29th, 2010
12:42 pm
I thought when Obama was elected everyone would love us and we would not have to worry about this.
“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”
Paul
October 29th, 2010
12:42 pm
md 12:20
I was nearly sideswiped on the interstate by a woman in a large SUV – after I’d moved over two lanes to get away from her. I fell behind and watched her text, then called 911 and reported a possible drunk driver. Operator asked why I thought she was drunk – said swerving, erratic speed, near collision. I’ve a feeling they don’t respond for a texting while driving call.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:44 pm
Wily Iranians that they are, have now built a nuclear
reactor so the Israelis can destroy their Country
with one big bullet.
Bill Campbell
October 29th, 2010
12:45 pm
We shouldn’t police the world or send aid to all these people who hate us!
Paul
October 29th, 2010
12:46 pm
@@ 12:22
But they don’t see it.
The other posts about oil: fact is, given known reserves, exploited or not, we’re entering the phase where oil deliveries will decline. Even bringing on our known domestic reserves will not bring world oil production up to where it used to be (or will be in 1-3 years, depending on whose estimates you choose). And that, coupled with increasing worldwide demand, will cause big problems for petroleum-dependent economies.
Hank Johnson
October 29th, 2010
12:46 pm
Whatever we do…we can’t put more Marines on Guam or the island may tip over.
Lil' Barry Bailout
October 29th, 2010
12:49 pm
It’s tempting to say we should withdraw, but some bad things have happened through history when we’ve gone isolationist.
On the other hand, according to the libbtard belief system, the US is the main source of evil in the world, so, led by their chief international apologist, the Idiot Messiah, libbtards would probably think withdrawal would be a great thing.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
12:50 pm
soothsayer, and as I suggested earlier this week (I promise, I am not a shill); check out the current issue of The American Conservative, to get an idea of how the Federal Reserve Bank enables the warmongers and for profit patriots of the M-I complex. and peadawg, you kinda ripped me off (CT’s blog/immigration). remember how I opined about the wisdom of ridding other countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) of their “illegals” while the government has little interest in “defending” the United States? jm, agreed re: isolationism, there is a difference between military bases (800?) and embassies. we can have a diplomatic presence without an occupation force.
md
October 29th, 2010
12:51 pm
Paul,
No, they only respond to texting calls when the texter has crashed………….
I guess some poor mom will have to start MATD before these idiots get the message.
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
12:53 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
October 29th, 2010
12:49 pm
It’s tempting to say we should withdraw
—————————————————-
Withdrawal doesn’t work, that’s why there are so many
abortions.
Paul
October 29th, 2010
12:53 pm
md
Thanks. I’ll keep calling in DWI suspicion for the really egregious cases like that. The misrepresentation doesn’t bother me a bit.
md
October 29th, 2010
12:55 pm
“I’ll keep calling in DWI suspicion for the really egregious cases like that.”
Good for you.
I thought about taking my camera and posting to the internet pictures of all the offenders – you know, the scarlet letter effect.
Quickly realized I would in essence be doing the same thing…………
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
12:57 pm
Li’l Barry B, need I remind you, libtard POTUS William Jefferson Clinton sought to rid Bosnia and Kosovo of “evil” in the 90’s. even libtards are beholden to a higher power when it comes to the military. your Messiah Bush tried to rid Afghanistan and Iraq of evil as well.
David S
October 29th, 2010
12:57 pm
9-11 is what happens when you pretend to be the wor;d’s policeman while really being the world’s bully.
We have never been able to afford to be the world’s policeman. If we did not have a central bank (Federal Reserve) printing money out of thin air to cover the excessive debt spending of our worthless government, we would never have been able to even attenpt the gesture and we ALL would be safer and wealthier now.
Remember, the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 enabled Wilson to provoke the attack on the Lusitania that got us into WWI. That came at a time when the war was nearly at a stalemate. Had the war ended then, millions of men on all side would have lived, the empires of Germany, Russia, the Ottomans, and others would have remained intact. Germany would not have been devastated by the Treaty of Versailles (a Wilson creation). The bubble of the 1920’s would not have happened (funded as always by low interest rates from the Fed that fueled the stock market bubble). The earlier end to WWI would have left all world economies with more money so if an economic downturn had happened it would not have been as severe. Without the destructive Treaty destroying Germany’s economy, the stage would not have been set for the rise of Hitler. Russia might never have faced the Bolshevik revolution (brought on by the prolonged war costs). The Ottoman empire would have remained intact and the imperial powers of England, France and Spain would not have been able to carve up the Middle East setting the stage for all the problems we now face over there.
When one understands how the presence of the Central Bank fuels the imperial ambitions and “world policeman” ambitions of governments, it is clear why we must END THE FED and return all of our troops home to defend america from its domestic enemies.
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
1:02 pm
Li’l Barry B, need I remind you, libt**d POTUS William Jefferson Clinton sought to rid Bosnia and Kosovo of “evil” in the 90’s. even lib**rds are beholden to a higher power when it comes to the military. your Messiah Bush tried to rid Afghanistan and Iraq of evil as well. (apparently libt**d is grounds for moderation)
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
1:03 pm
apparently not
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
1:06 pm
David S., so you took my advice and read the American Conservative (or, unlike me, paid attention during 20th century World History lectures in college).
JIMBOB (aka James Robert)
October 29th, 2010
1:10 pm
Interestingly, quite a few people love doing the policing when it involves telling the Jews of Palestine where they are allowed to live and where they need to be cleansed…
barking frog
October 29th, 2010
1:10 pm
David S
October 29th, 2010
12:57 pm
————————————————————–
They can do all that just by setting overnight interest rates on
money loaned to member banks…..
ken R
October 29th, 2010
1:16 pm
Jay, well said, being a Moderate Conservative I have said this same thing for years, why in the Hell do we need to?
Ghostrider
October 29th, 2010
1:18 pm
I say NO…Why should the U.S. keep flipping the bill…I say let them fight their own battles. I say let them kill each other, they’ve been fighting each other for decades, and will continue to do so for decades ahead. Personally, I couldn’t give a rats a$$ what they do to each other.
ken R
October 29th, 2010
1:20 pm
Kamchak, for one of the few times I agree with you and what i’m about to say may upset you.
G W Bush signed into law a bill that says we cannot sell Arms to countries, Congo, Yeman and others, that use children as soldiers.
Guess what, that came into effect around 2 years ago and Obama still lets the arm dealers sell to those countries. See I told you it would upset you.
Hillbilly Deluxe
October 29th, 2010
1:30 pm
sfd @ 11:38 (if you happen by)
My original comment wasn’t really meant literally. And you have a point about the economic impact but I was thinking more of the strategic impact. There has to be an orderly transition to other countries taking up part of the role. If we (or any big power) just pull back, it creates a power vacuum and one which somebody would quickly move to fill. That probably wouldn’t be a good thing, unless we got mighty lucky.
Denny Rochester
October 29th, 2010
1:36 pm
Even if we could afford it, which we can’t, look at it form a personal standpoint. Would you want your neighbor or neighbors camping out in your front yard telling you how run your life, raise your kids, telling you who can or cannot come over, what you can buy or not buy, how short to keep your grass, what plants you can landscape with and who you can talk to. We are all humans here. We can share our ideas but I don’t think we or anybody else should ever try to shove our ideas down somebody else’s throat. We are lucky to be born here and enjoy everything we have. I gurantee you when our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence and knew that if we didn’t kick the Brit’s butt they would be hanging from a tree somewhere. They probably weren’t feeling too lucky along with the poor hungry, freezing soldiers that had to make it happen. We can argue with the islamics for the next 10 thousand years and they will not like us one bit more than than they do now.(It’s probably been more than 10 thousand years or more anyway so why go 10 thousand more).
paleo-neoCarlinist
October 29th, 2010
1:36 pm
barking frog, go to the American Conservative online and check it out. the Fed can and it does.
itpdude
October 29th, 2010
1:40 pm
No, especially when we seem to be the kind of cop that does more harm than good.
White man
October 29th, 2010
1:45 pm
Unfortunately I feel as though we have to be. However the focus of our government should be the mexican border and not other nations.
(D) = Democrat Drunk Sailor Spenders, (R) = Reformed Republican Drunk Sailor Spenders
October 29th, 2010
1:46 pm
Only if we use missiles on ‘em. That’s a lot faster and cheaper!
Swede Atlanta
October 29th, 2010
1:52 pm
We can no longer be policeman to the world. We need to plan for all possible credible threats to our security but that doesn’t mean forward deployment of manpower and machine.
At the same time we cannot withdraw from the world. We have, at least for now, the largest economy in the world. We are, at least for now, the only super power. It is in our self-interest to remain engaged in the world.
Those who advocate leaving the UN, defunding the organziation and showing them the door are not students of history. I am no revisionist historian but the American withdrawal from the League of Nations and the subsequent isolationism was a mistake. Hitler interpreted American isolationism as a signal that as long as he didn’t disturb the Western Hemisphere he was cleared for action. I’m not suggesting that had the U.S. been more involved Hitler would never have started WWII but think our absence hastened and emboldened him.
America’s pre-eminence is going to pass just as it did for the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Romans, Brits, etc. But we remain a significant player with significant interests in the world.
David S
October 29th, 2010
1:55 pm
paleo-neoCarlinist – While I occasionally read an article or two in The American Conservative, this information is available every day on Lewrockwell.com, mises.org, antiwar.com and other great truly libertarian sites.
I used to think that the Fed was just another among many issues. Now I have come to realize it is the ONLY issue for all other issues related to government excess flow directly from its ability to generate the money needed for those excesses. In this case it is the ability to fund a global police force (read empire), but in others it is the welfare state, NASA, foreign aid, TARP, the NSA, the CIA, the stimulus projects, and every other boondoggle we all complaint about.
END THE FED.
Fletch
October 29th, 2010
1:57 pm
Nope – they don’t want us, so let’s see how they do without us.
Herodatus
October 29th, 2010
2:05 pm
As the father of history I would like to repeat my quote from the 5th century BC “Those people who know no history are doomed to repeat it.” The empire known as the United States is headed down the same road as other former empires: Roman, Persian, Russian and British empires all expanded beyond their reasonable borders as they attempted to dominate other peoples and economies. They all exhausted and bankrupted themselves trying to carry out policies based upon greed and ego of their dominant classes. Washington under the control of Wall Street is well down the same path as these previous empires and will soon suffer the same fate. People prepare yourselves for the collapse of this current empire. Ask your self why is Italy the country is is today and no longer a world dominating empire, learn from the mistakes of others and suffer as little as possible in the long run.
David S
October 29th, 2010
2:08 pm
It is interesting to see how some think. Pulling our armies back to our own shores has nothing to do with disengaging the rest of the world. If you honestly think that the world trades with us ONLY because we station troops on their shores and in their cities then you don’t understand economics. The world trades with us because we have either products they want to buy or products they want to sell for dollars (when they stop wanting our worthless dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) then we are sunk.
The more we invade and occupy sovereign nations that have done us no harm, and the more innocent people our miliary kills, the less anyone will want to trade with companies and people from our country.
We can withdraw and continue to sell and buy all we want. Everyone think that we need to occupy the middle east to have access to their oil. They cannot eat sand. They must sell oil, and we have plenty of food to sell to them.
Do not buy into the imperialist attitude that the neocons from both sides of the aisle are pushing. We can be non-interventionist (meaning not sticking our nose and our jack-boots into everyone else’s lives) while trading with everyone who will trade with us.
For sure, the less we are imposing our will on the unwilling around the world, the richer this country will be, the safer we will be, and the more who will want to trade with us.
James
October 29th, 2010
2:09 pm
For once I agree with Jay!!
Tired of paying the bill
October 29th, 2010
2:22 pm
While Europe paid for their socialist medicine and welfare programs. We provided their defense. Now that we have our own socialist entitlement government plans how about we let them pay for their defense while we try to pay for our socialism.
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
2:25 pm
I think professional skeptic summed it up quite nicely:
“The intentional, systematic downward pressure on Amercans’ incomes by their corporate overlords means we no longer have the tax base to support it.
Only the profligate spending of borrowed money will keep us in the role of the world’s police force.”
and Hillbilly Deluxe:
“There has to be an orderly transition to other countries taking up part of the role. If we (or any big power) just pull back, it creates a power vacuum and one which somebody would quickly move to fill. That probably wouldn’t be a good thing, unless we got mighty lucky.”
Bosch
October 29th, 2010
2:26 pm
Oops! Forgot to add to Hillbilly’s comment —
I mean, would we all be comfortable if China decided to take the job left by us?
extremerightwing
October 29th, 2010
2:40 pm
The Russian Bear invading Europe is no longer a legit threat. The new threat is arising in the Pacific with China flexing its military and economic muscles. Let’s not forget the crazy little man in N.K. Redeploy our assets in Europe to the Pacific with a heavy emphasis on air and sea power. We could reduce our land forces somewhat as we hope not engage in a major land war with China. We don’t have enough bullets or bodies for that war.
One this is for certain….somebody will exercise political/military power in the world. Do we want that to be the U.S. or China or a Muslim Caliph?
BS Aplenty
October 29th, 2010
2:49 pm
I don’t think that decisions on the defense of our freedom ought be made based on the premise that “we have to make fiscal budget cuts.” At least not primarily and certainly not solely on that basis.
I think it makes much more fiscal and political sense to preempt the hostile intentions of other nations, including China, with a superior, but appropriate, military deterrent. That makes more sense than it would to arbitrarily reduce your capabilities, encourage the hostile intentions of others and then have to respond. There is some reasonable level of deterrent that makes fiscal sense but there is no America if we can’t defend our interests.
Think about it – what if China, with a nuclear capability, invades Japan? Would you be willing to fight a land war with the Chinese assuming, hopefully, it doesn’t escalate into a nuclear one? Or would it be better to deter such aggression, as we do now, with a worldwide military presence? It’s your children, Mr. Bookman, which scenario would you prefer?
Ultimately, I think, if we want to preserve our freedom, we must daily be prepared to defend it and spend what we must to do it. There is simply no vacation time in this game.
shaggy
October 29th, 2010
2:57 pm
Under ONE condition and ONE condition only. We conquer the whole planet and subject it to our laws.
Otherwise, NO! It’s a ridiculous concept that hearkens to a one world order.
WAW
October 29th, 2010
2:58 pm
You stand a better chance of getting rid of Republicans than the Taliban. Defense budget should defend our homeland (and yes, start at our borders) not the interest of Oil Companies or the Military Industrial Complex. We should never again (and it was supposed to be that way after Viet Nam) go to war without an official Declaration of War and then we should enter only to win (we destroyed Berlin and Japan but not Iraq, not North Viet Nam, and not Afghanistan). If you are not willing to kill civilians don’t go to war because war is killing people soldiers and civilians of the enemy.
The only thing guaranteed to increase higher than military spending is health insurance (and if Republicans do what they say, we will be underwriting profits for the insurance industry soon too). Use the money being wasted on police actions to take proper care of those men and women whose lives have been ruined by their service to misguided and stupid war mongers. While we should not end all spending for weapon systems, we should spend only for the best equipment to a) protect our troops and b) totally destroy any country who attacks us.
BS Aplenty
October 29th, 2010
3:17 pm
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy
January 20,961
It’s very instructive to listen to the tenor and the words of people who were responsible for defending liberty during World War II during the Cold War.
Lil' Barry Bailout
October 29th, 2010
5:48 pm
BS, those are some beautiful words. And not a hint of apology.
Don't Forget
October 29th, 2010
6:37 pm
Looks like I missed this topic wanted to mention something. The US Air Force is the largest air force in the world. I’m sure that surprises no one. But who has the second largest air force in the world??? That would be the US Navy. Now I don’t have a problem with a strong defense, in fact I agree with it. But take a look at the F-22 fighter in the following article. It has all sorts of problems and meets no threat that isn’t already handled by our current fleet. This is a perfect example of government waste of taxpayer dollars. Thank goodness Obama and Gates stopped the purchase of more of these flying deficit makers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
TnGelding
October 29th, 2010
8:23 pm
We’re spending $600 billion plus at the Pentagon and are being terrorized by goons with box cutters and pirates. Is the world really that different? Kennedy, like Obama, had a way with words. But that’s all it was. We can’t deliver that kind of promise, and shouldn’t want to. Our intervention only magnifies and prolongs the problems.
BADA BING
October 29th, 2010
9:52 pm
The US needs to raise our food prices to match oil price increases. We have excess food, we should use it like OPEC uses oil.They increase, we increase.
Chet
October 31st, 2010
10:38 pm
“Jay Bookman
Can we still afford to be world’s policeman?”
My answer is can we afford not to be?
I’ve actually been wondering the same thing for many years and have come to the conclusion that its a burden we must bear. There is truth in the statement that freedom is not free.
Laying down our arms and turning our backs in order to save money is not going to make the problem go away, rather it will bring it right back home.
Chet
GaDawg
November 3rd, 2010
7:50 am
Roy Barnes quote:” I have run the good race, fought the good fight, kept the faith but the dead vote in Atlanta just did not turn out as I expected.