Close Topic Options

Military Spending Gone Mad

I was reading the Herald today and was startled by the amount of money the US Government plans to spend on defence.

For the fiscal 2007 budget, the US Government will spend up to a staggering $513 billion. This is more than the defence spending of every other country in the world combined, the Herald said. The next largest spending was China with $67 billion.

I find this a remarkable amount of money. It also said in this report that spending on other key domestic areas was being cut.

What I found interesting, was that the largest area of spending in defence was on the missile defence shield and space-based military programs.

The current war on "Terror" will not in any way be advanced by such programs, prompting questions of why spend so much money on these areas?

Questions of pork-barrelling, the act of pouring government money into politically beneficial projects, must be asked.

Is the US Government spending this money for any legitimate cause, or to line the pockets of defence contractors and their political allies?

Are Americans happy with this spending, or would they rather see better hospitals, roads and infrastructure?

Rather off topic, but...

Can anyone please shed some light as to the reasons why the Bush Administration has changed the name "War on Terror" to the "Long War". This sounds like a very strange PR stunt, given the fact that most folk don't like war, so why make it sound protracted?

Mad Spending Military

First off, I hope this will not turn into a USA / Iraq thread again, we have enough of that already. So, I will now focus on military spending in general. I believe that any government should spend whatever is necessary in order to protect its' borders. The reason for this is simple: it is better to spend your last dime to be free than a slave to an enemy from afar. Now, back to what is 'necessary', most people argue over this concept (defense expenditures) over and over again, but one cannot really know when it is enough simply by counting ships and soldiers. We live in an age where people can take regular civilian planes and cause havoc. There needs to be a military expenditure to prevent that, and it does not cost tanks or planes. Most times the money that goes into preventing terrorist attacks (the more common warfare of today) is a lot more than simply seeing your enemy on a map and firing a missile. So, in the end, is money spending getting out of hand? Yes, but is it necessary? Most likely and are we sure? No, we can only pray that elected leaders do the right thing.

Military Spending Gone Mad History & Civil Business Politics

Billions Over Baghdad: How Did $9B in Cash Airlifted From the Fed to Iraq Go Missing?

One month after the invasion of Iraq, the United States began airlifting planeloads of cash to Baghdad. Between April 2003 and June 2004, a total of $12 billion dollars of US currency was shipped to Iraq where it was to be dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority for reconstruction. To date, at least $9 billion dollars cannot be accounted for. In a startling new expose in Vanity Fair, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele follow the money trail from the Federal Reserve to Iraq.
Ref. https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/12/1410243

Mad Spending Military

Considering the nature of the fight that the United States (as well as the Europeans who have been attacked much more then us recently) have to face, 3.7 percent is not that big of a number (It should be higher).

I do hope that they spend that money well, not waisting that money of 300 dollar toilets and useless military items. Hopefully more on bunkerbustsers, drone planes, and border security in Iraq and her in the United States.

This is not a either or situation, both can be done and done well.

Rather off topic, but... Can anyone please shed some light as to the reasons why the Bush Administration has changed the name "War on Terror" to the "Long War". This sounds like a very strange PR stunt, given the fact that most folk don't like war, so why make it sound protracted?

My Answer

Rather off topic, but... Unfortunately the war (against islamic extremists, not the Iraq war which I believe is just a battle in a larger war) will last at least 10 if not 20 years regardless if there is a Democrat or Republican in the office. We either have to completely destroy the enemy, or they will bleed us dry. We cannot just stop fighting, since the enemy has stated they will follow us anywhere we are. If there are islamist extremist that want to kill Westeners they will continue to do it, regardless if we want the fight or not.

Message Edited... Persephone: Please learn how to use the Quote Tags. See our Constructive Posting Policy.

Mad Spending Military

WAR is a Racket. It Always Has Been
By Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out. Ref. Source 6

Military Spending Gone Mad

The Bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupation: $4 to $6 Trillion:

A recent report from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Linda Blimes put the combined cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at somewhere between $4 and $6 billion dollars. Ref. Source 6

Military Spending Mad

U.S. Military Spending Boost Threatens Our Economy and Security By Ron Paul. Our military empire is the source of rather than the solution to our problems. Source 3m.

Military Spending Mad Politics Business Civil & History

Granted we are spending a lot on our military but we are also making sure it is the best equipped military on this earth. Having an all volunteer military shows that we can be the best and the best equipped so that we will be ready for anything. I still believe that we should stop invading other nations but there are those that disagree with me.