Skip to main content

View Diary: "Defense" spending?—who are we trying to kid? (169 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fully agree with all your points (14+ / 0-)

    But, take some exception with the issue of Afghanistan. That is indeed a NATO engagement. There were 40,000 non-US troops there.

    There was far more justification for the Afghan campaign, and zero justification for Iraq, imo.

    On the larger point, there is alot that should be done to cut our military and intelligence budgets

    •  I agree (14+ / 0-)

      Yes, it was justified, IMO.

      But my point is that the Afghanistan war was not worth the investment in blood and treasure. The very best we could say is that it served as a base for the bin Laden operation.

      Republicans proved in October that they are UNFIT TO GOVERN. Don't let the voter forget it. (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:31:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  WHICH "Afghan campaign?" First or second? (11+ / 0-)

      In both of which "we," apparently unguided by any actual "mission," except "we kill dome of them so they kill some of us so we kill some of them...", engage in large scale corruption, to the point of electrocuting our own troops in contractor-built showers, deliver bags and bales of used, non-sequential $100 bills to "our friends," have young jarhead sergenats telling villagers that they have to move back into a recently trashed market town because "doctrine" calls for it and be confounded by the observation that "How will you Americans protect us? With all your weapons and technology you cannot protect yourselves." Or where "we" bribe "insurgents" and "terrorists" to not blow up "our" convoys carrying $400+ a gallon (delivered) fuel and munitions to "the front" as decreed by some bunch of idiot Brass Hats "for this campaign"?

      What was the "justification?" That some little bunch of what we call "ragheads" might have not turned bin Ladin over to the US forces? Or how about "we have to save the women and girls"?

      The idiocy and waste and fraud and abuse are so totally institutionalized, and you know that "cuts" as seen with the recent sequester charade, are friggin' impossible. Can't even hardly slow the RATE OF GROWTH of the enormous cancer that is the Mindless Military Industrial Media Security Complex...

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:40:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ya, we won't agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tim DeLaney, Dragon5616
        •  I was once a believer too... ENLISTED in 1966 (17+ / 0-)

          to go kill commies in Vietnam. $4 trillion later... the Afghan thing (there's fighting, but that does not make it a "war" even per the Pentagon) is taking a run at $6 trillion from what I read. Tell me again what "the mission" is, what the "justification" is, for that? So "our guy," Karzai, can piss on our leg while we hand him billions? what?

          Of course, whether you and I "agree" or not, the billions, in their hundreds and thousands, will still flow into the maw of Moloch, making "nice middle class incomes" for a pittance of the population and moving the planet a little closer to death by cancer...

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:06:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kudos for your service (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tim DeLaney, paradise50

            I totally respect anyone who served their country. 10 years here, but never had to hold a weapon.

            •  Not even in Boot? I thought everyone had to at (0+ / 0-)

              least train in basic weapons handling and pass a basic qualification...

              I mean even if a noncombatant of some type, everyone might need to shoot someone someday in the military....We are used to being able to take and hold ground but that ground gets attacked regularly........Heck that was why the M-1 Carbine came to being so that Transport drivers and such had a weapon with more range than a sidearm.

              Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
              I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
              Emiliano Zapata

              by buddabelly on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:12:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tim DeLaney, paradise50

            Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky, Bell Textron, Northrop Grumman, B.A.E., Raytheon, General Dynamics, Genreral Atomics, Halliburton, Boeing, Xe, Trijicon, Colt, Barrett, and on, and on and on ....

            It doesn't seem like they'll be slowing down any time soon does it?

            Reaganomics noun pl: blind faith that unregulated capitalism can provide unlimited goods and services, that government is bad and it can increase revenue by decreasng revenue. Synonyms: Friedmanomics. Antonyms: common sense. Related Words: Laffer curve

            by FrY10cK on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:33:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  ...jm214... (13+ / 0-)

        ...just as the Viet Nam war was really for the Bell Helicoptor "Huey helicoptor" (Lady Bird's daddy was really pushing for that...he made a mint) to make a shitload of money,

        The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were for Halibuton and all the rest to make shitloads of in $billions. It wasn't about winning any quick war. It was always intended to be a l-o-n-g drawn out deal so Cheney and the other henchmen (including very Fundie groups) could continue to make $billions. There is plenty of evidence this was planned out long before we ever got involved.

        Here is something from Cornell you might be interested in:

        The bullshit reason to get into Iraq was for the same purpose.

        We don't do wars anymore we do "conflicts" and "nation building" which NEVER happens BUT the few who control these actions make shitloads...

        Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences. -7.38; -3.44

        by paradise50 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:10:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a Viet vet who was stupid enough to ENLIST (11+ / 0-)

          in 1966 to "save the nation." I spent 366 days playing with those Bell-Textron UH-1 series helicopters.

          Regarding "nation building," here's an illumination on what the Warlords mean by that resounding phrase:

          AUTHOR: COL Jayne A. Carson
          TITLE: Nation-Building, The American Way
          FORMAT: Strategy Research Project
          DATE: 07 April 2003
          PAGES: 39
          CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified

          The United States has conducted nation-building operations since 1898 and does so in a uniquely American way.

          Nation-building is the intervention in the affairs of a nation-state for the purpose of changing the state’s method of government and when the United States pursues these efforts there is one goal – democratization.
          [they don't even try to define "democratization" of course] Removing existing governments requires force, and history has shown that the Army is the force of choice. The story of America’s nation- building efforts starts with the Spanish-American War when the United States decided that Cuba and the Philippines should no longer be colonies of Spain. After defeating Spain in Cuba and routing their forces from the Philippines, the United States began nation-building efforts to establish democratic governments that were representative of the populace.

          This paper examines select nation-building operations beginning in Cuba and the Philippines. The success of transforming post WWII Germany and Japan are described, as are the failures in Somalia and Haiti, and the ongoing efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. It concludes with an examination of the Herculean efforts that will be required if the United States is to see success in Afghanistan.

          The United States is reluctant to use the term nation-building and for this reason, many military personnel do not understand the critical role the military plays in this mission. It is a role that extends long past the time
          that battles, campaigns, and wars have been won. The military, specifically the Army as the ground presence and symbol of America’s commitment, is required to remain in place long after the fight has been won in order to create the conditions for democracy to take root. This is the reason why Army officers need to understand why and how the United States builds nations

          Reads like a freshman history paper. A scary one, with every little shibboleth of American Exceptionalism and the serial idiocy, greed and FAIL of "muscular foreign policy" touched on and fondled. And these are the asswipes who set "our" policy and "conduct" our freakin' wars, from their ergonomic workstations from which they "manage conflict" in this or that "command" of the fucking idiocy labeled the Global Interoperable (and a bunch of other adjectives) Network-Centric Contractor-Driven Battlespace.

          Of course, "nation-building," that's just a nominal Milbabble "mission" laid over what a few actual patriots like Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler have pointed out as the real nature of the bullshit that sucks in and sucker-baits generation after generation of US populations (can't call them "citizens," darn it): "War is a Racket:" the real nature of the beast.

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:00:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site