Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
Defense is the ONLY thing liberals ever want to cut. Give surrender a chance... 
Believe it or not, there is common ground. I'm a conservative and I support national defense, and more is better to a point (emphasis intended).
However, besides getting out of Afghanistan, I'd be the first to point out that we never should have went into Iraq under George W. Bush. How did Colin Powell make that presentation to the U.N. that showed evidence for "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Somebody really screwed up.
But even aside from that - how long is too long to maintain an American "tripwire" force on the 38th parallel? I think 60 years is plenty, don't you guys? What did deployment, support, hardware, supplies, etc. cost over 60 years? Or, since Korea was "U.N. Police Action", let's bill the U.N. (a.k.a other countries) for the costs including a profit for us. This at the same time as we reduce our payments to the U.N. from 23% of their operating capital down to the lowest contributing large nations of around 11%. |
more is better? are you seriously advocating spending
more on defense than we do now?
if we were to have a smaller military, not going into iraq would be a reality. but hey, we have all these soldiers, sailors and airmen, so we use them.
have you actually looked to see just how much we spend each year on defense? what portion of the federal budget goes to defense? how our spending matches up to the next nine largest militaries? most of the next nine are our allies. two of the nine are china and russia. russia's spending is equal to france. or to england.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
i've posted the above before.
note this graph:
defense graph.png
that's our spending compared to the next four largest militaries.