Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
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:
Attachment 2072
that's our spending compared to the next four largest militaries. |
Cut it to 300 and it still is more then double. But then Dell will say if you do that you will get invaded
If you fight smarter by using drones which are much cheaper then boots on the ground or bombing from a mile up and some innocent civilian gets killed then damn you because an innocent civilian was killed. When you counter with how many innocent civilians get killed in a ground war or bombing from a mile up you get crickets. I would say logic dictates that many more innocent civilians are killed by conventional warefare.