I know I'm going to go against the grain of the typical member here but you can't have discussion without disagreement.

Although I'm massively liberal socially and moderately liberal economically, I tend to side with the right on national security. I would hardly call myself a war mongeror because I would rather have peace than war. I'm indifferent to corporations profiting from war - as long as they don't influence government policy. If they do, that's a different issue which should be addressed separately. I definitely believe special interest should not have any special voice.

The problem with projecting weakness is a basic human nature thing. People want what is best for themselves. If you project weakness, anyone with interests against you will see that weakness and capitalize on it. It's like if you're the manager of a baseball team and you see that the opponent has a weak left-fielder, guess where you want your hitters to hit to?

Maintaining a strong defense is not a liberal or conservative issue; it's just good, common sense. Human nature - being what is - you WILL be attacked if you're perceived as weak.

I am hopeful that our society will evolve to the point where we have a universally agreed upon single world authority on military issues. That will require a degree of agreement that we don't have now. Some pessimistic people believe we will never have such an agreement or even that such an agreement will be undesirable. Either way, strength is desirable.

Eventually, the people of strength will have the greatest voice in dictating what many people euphemistically describe as the New World Order. Like it or not, it's coming. Everyone will eventually have nuclear weapons capability. I find it amazing that every country doesn't have it already. It's old technology. A one-world government will eventually be necessary to prevent Armageddon. Do you want to be a strong government during the negotiations or a weak one?

Quote:Maintaining a strong defense is not a liberal or conservative issue

But pissing away more money than the next 20 nations combined, is.  If we continue to let this country deteriorate it will be the same as buying a $1 million-dollar insurance policy on a car which is up on blocks.

(August 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Maintaining a strong defense is not a liberal or conservative issue

But pissing away more money than the next 20 nations combined, is.  If we continue to let this country deteriorate it will be the same as buying a $1 million-dollar insurance policy on a car which is up on blocks.

That's a good argument if it's valid. Is it really?

America has always maintained military supremacy by superior manufacturing capability. We no longer have that. We have sacrificed manufacturing supremacy for economic supremacy but that is an illusion. We cannot maintain economic supremacy as long as we are inferior manufacturers.

Do you really think China will be a beneficent world leader, focused on the good of humanity?

I have nothing to add to mins post. There's quite a lot of room between being weak and what you are doing now. The distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri may cover it, although I'm not sure if Alpha Centauri isn't a bit too close - by a 1000 lightyears or so.

First off, let me just say that I congratulate you on taking up an issue that goes against the grain on these forums. There is a ridiculous liberal bias on these forums. I get pretty tired of wading through a thousand posts that classify any conservative view as either crazy or stupid, as though 1/3 of the country should be thrown in the loony bin. I think not understanding other peoples points of view shows intellectual weakness, not strength. I've privately talked to many people on here who are closeted conservatives in one way or another but never want to talk about it because of the fear of being ostracized from the forums. I'm an open conservative on many issues (even if it means less reputation points for me) so I welcome threads like these.

Second: I totally disagree with you.

There is no way in the world America will be attacked. How and by whom? China? China doesn't have the naval strength to attack Taiwan, much less the United States. Russia? Again, no naval strength and no motivation to attack us. You know the last time America was attacked? By Pancho Villa in 1916. Random Texans with guns fought him off and the majority of the casualities were on the Mexican side. It would take the rest of the world put together to conquer America even if we didn't have an army.

Terrorists is probably the next thing, but guess what? We have the most powerful military in the world by far and we are a huge target of terrorists anyway. Having a powerful army doesn't do jack to prevent terrorism. In fact all the people we've killed overseas just breeds the next generation of terrorists who hate us.

I think good conservatives need to wake up and realize what the military actually is, the largest welfare program on the planet and a huge waste of money. We don't need it. America isn't a world leader because of our military. If anything we are a world leader because of Hollywood and our music industry. We are the cultural center of the world (despite what all the europhiles on this forum think.) When was the last time you watched a french movie or listened to French music that wasn't shit? Our culture is what keeps us as the world leader, not our military. That's a lie that politicians tell us in order to support the most massive and worst welfare program in the history of earth.

It isn't military might as much as it is implementation that counts. Much of the current nightmare that is the Middle East is directly attributable to the 'wasp policy' of Bush/Blair: if you get stung by a wasp, the proper response is to follow that wasp back to its nest, and then thump the nest with a big stick.

A further argument against military might is the evidence of nations with modest (or even small) military expenditures who never seem to get attacked. When was the last time anyone mounted a conventional military invasion of Canada, Spain, or Finland?

Boru

With the exception of Finland, that would have been us.

(August 15, 2015 at 7:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

That's what I was going to mention. There's a good reason to have a strong military, but even if we cut it in half we'd still spend more than the next several nations combined. We don't carry a big stick. we carry a tree. We're more endangered from within, than from without, anyway. Whether it's local right wing terrorist groups, or rich people buying off politicians and crashing the economy, or whatever.

Here's a better.... and probably later chart.

Note that it not only includes the actual "budget items" for the DOD but also the other little tag ons where money is pissed away on "security."

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/17/one-tr...fghanistan



I'm very glad you started this thread, AFTT.  It's a discussion that should be done.  With luck, the theists will stay away so the adults can talk.