How much do we spend out of our budget for military/defense?

[darkangel218]

60%? 70%?

regardless of the correct amount, we spend a huge chunk on military.

If the Congress approves a military intervention, it would be within the budget which would be spent every year regardless.
I am not suggesting we should go on wars just because we allocate a lot of money to the military. But in this specific situation is paramount that we do something about it.
I saw ( disgusting ) posts suggesting to " let them kill each other off " and couldn't believe it!! are we that heartless??!?
Yes, I know we need help WITHIN our country too, I'm all aware of that. But like I said, the air strikes wont change anything money wise, if that's what you're worried about. That money go to the military regardless.

So, that. We don't have to turn a blind eye to genocide, and make excuses that is too expensive, or that is none of our business. It is our business. And even in the past we have made mistakes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Thank you for standing up for what is right, President Obama.

x

[tazkcmo]

1. Won't change anything on the ground wise either.

Except more dead people. Not bombing does not equal a blind eye. And genocide? I disagree that what happened qualifies as genocide. Horrific yes, genocide no. A military strike serves only the American public and politicians. What will it accomplish in Syria? There has to be a better way to respond that will hurt the guilty party, not aid Al Queda and send a message to other non western aligned dictators not to gas folks. Killing more people just doesn't seem productive imho.

[darkangel218]

2. What happend wasnt a genocide?? then what was it??

You agree with the use of WMD?

And you don't know nothing on ground will change. MOST likely it will, for the better. We wont know until we try. So far status quo for Assads regim is mass murder your own people to shut them up. Are you ok with that?

[tazkcmo]

3. It was a horrific and brutal attack.

Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, Caste, religious, or national group"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

And no, I'm not ok with that. Where did you get that idea? Did you read my whole post? Like the part about finding another solution besides MORE death? One that only satisfies American's sense of outrage? What would you bomb? What will it accomplish? What are the possible repercussions? What will you do about those repercussions?

[darkangel218]

4. There is no other solution.

Do you think Assad would be open to "options"??

and I care about the repercussions. But I care even more about doing something, rather than shrug and turn a blind eye to the genocide! ( weather you call it that or not).

If we do nothing, Assad will continue his mass killing.

[tazkcmo]

5. None?

Wow. I don't buy that there is no other option. And why do you keep equating not dropping bombs to turning a blind eye? As a parent I had to often punish my children for bad behavior. I didn't just hit them. I thought of ways that hurt more than violent action like taking away the video game or something. That's not turning a blind eye. It's thinking and finding better alternatives to just hitting them.

I'm sorry it took so long to reply but I had to review my posts for the part I wrote about consulting Assad. As I thought, I didn't. Why do you bring that up? Of course we wouldn't offer him any options. But again, I ask you, What will we bomb? Who? How long? How hard? What happens after that? Boots on the ground? The only "plan" I've heard you offer is bombs. That's it. Just drop bombs. Go get 'em cowboy.

[darkangel218]

7. Yah, go them.

Get Assad's military infrastructure, airports, aircrafts, etc. Disable him from bombing his own people.

How exactly will be done, is not my domain, I leave that up to the military.

[tazkcmo]

9. OK

So, LOTS of bombs. We need to wipe out his military infrastructure, all the airports, all the airplanes (what about the pilots?) and all of the etcetera. That's a whole buncha bombs. Then what do we do after we've destroyed Syria's ability to travel through the air? We're going to rebuild all those airports and buy them new airplanes?

My favorite part in your plan is the etcetera.

[darkangel218]

12. The world cant afford a nut job running around dropping WMDs.

When are you going to agree that an intervention is necessary? when he will get bored with the chemical weapons and start using biological ones??

[tazkcmo]

17. That's the most sensible thing I've seen you post

And I agree. The disagreement comes when we ask, "What do we do about it?"

Do we go alone as if we are the judge, jury and executioner? Do we rally the International Community to our side? Do we have thoughtful and lengthy discussions with the world community? Do we eliminate a nation's ability to defend itself? They'll need that stuff after Assad.
So now I know that your actual goal is regime change. We can do that with one bullet.

By the way, biological weapons can be delivered through mosquitoes. You gonna bomb those, too?

This is dejavu all over again. The smoking gun and mushroom cloud are warming up for their appearance.

[darkangel218]

20. Not deja vu, nothing to do with prior conflicts.

You know, hyperboles and mosquitos carrying WMD may be your way to make a point. Bottom line, so far it looks like we are going to intervene. Both Ds and Rs are on board.

Sorry that upsets you.

[tazkcmo]

26. I doubt you're sorry.

And when I was in the Army we studied quite a bit about the different ways NBC weapons could be deployed and large swarms of mosquitoes was something we were told would indicate a possible biological attack. Sorry if that upsets YOU. So, tell the Army to quit engaging in hyperbole.

Your arguments are EXACTLY like "prior conflicts". The Iraq "conflict". "Evil dictator. Gassed his own people. Can't wait around for him to do something even worse." Exactly.

[darkangel218]

28. Thats your opinion. Because i was against both wars.

My support for this intervention has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. and you saying that it does will not make it true.

[tazkcmo]

33. I don't have to say it.

All I have to do is Google your own words. Now don't you have a military to volunteer for? And don't go Navy or AF. Put your money where your mouth is and go Marine or Army. I want the cheerleaders in the front ranks.

[darkangel218]

35. Oh yah, join the military because you agree with POTUS decision!!

that's all you have?

[ocpagu]

38. And what do you have?

"We can afford it, so let's bomb them"

...

[tazkcmo]

39. No

I have everything else I've already posted and what others have posted.

As a veteran of the US Army I'm never in a big hurry to throw our military weight around because I happen to know a lot of service members and don't want to see them die so you can feel better. Much like I didn't want to see my son die in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's kind of personal. I say go join because it's too easy to start a fight when you're not in it.

[darkangel218]

41. Im not starting anything, the administration is.

I simply agree with their decision.

[tazkcmo]

43. You're on this message board cheerleading.

Bomb! Kill! Destroy! I'm mad at Assad! Bomb all their airports, airplanes, weapons and the all important etcetera. That is YOU, not President. You've gone much further than our Potus. In fact, you seem a little giddy.

[darkangel218]

45. You think that youre going to win this aegument by making things up?

How is what I said different or how have I gone further than what POTUS proposed??
Actually nevermind. I'm not going to respond to your lies anymore, obviously you have no intention to carry a civil discussion.
Carry on your " join the military " rethoric with someone else.

Again, sorry you're so upset.

[tazkcmo]

46. Here is post 7. Yours.

Get Assad's military infrastructure, airports, aircrafts, etc. Disable him from bombing his own people.

Those are your words. Obama has called for a very limited strike. I have not heard him wanting to wipe out their AF, airports, military infrastructure or even their etcetera.

As for civil, I find that very ironic as it's you that is calling for the most UNcivil action there is.

Then there is "winning". I have already won by calling you out on your chicken hawk, bomb bomb bomb rhetoric while you sit safely in your living room watching Sock And Awe Part II on your nice HD television in full surround sound so you can gain the maximum amount of pleasure watching Syrians die the RIGHT way at the hands of the RIGHT people. How civil of you.

[tazkcmo]

44. But Saddam gassed his open people too

And LOTS of Iranians. What's the difference? A democrat?

[ocpagu]

22. "The world cant afford a nut job running around dropping WMDs"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

US to modernize tactical nuclear arsenal in Europe

"18 May 2013

The U.S. has decided to modernize its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, as well as in America. Experts are divided concerning how the move will affect the balance of strength in Europe. However, this is not the worst news for Russia."

"According to The Guardian, when the programme is completed in 2019-2020, the American nuclear arsenal in Europe will get new high-precision nuclear warheads together with advanced delivery systems, especially stealth planes."

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/150499/us-to-modernize-tactical-nuclear-arsenal-in-europe.html


http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/nuclearweapons/articles/US_Tactical_Nuclear_Weapons_Fact_sheet/

US Developing Guided Tactical Nuclear Weapon for Europe

"ess than three years after President Obama’s Nobel Prize winning Prague declaration that he would seek “A world free of nuclear weapons” the United States is planning to uprade its tactical nuclear weapons creating a new “guided nuclear bomb” deployed on jets based in European countries against their will (Guardian, “Obama accused of nuclear U-turn as guided weapons plan emerges”, 21 April 2013 )."

http://scraptrident.org/682/

[darkangel218]

25. So what?? we are not the only ones having a nuclear arsenal.

your post means nothing.

[ocpagu]

29. You are the only ones spreading them. n/t

[tazkcmo]

31. Nor are they the only ones

with nut jobs in charge of it. We got a few of those ourselves.

I have yet to see anyone disagree about Assad being a creep that needs to pay for what he has done (if indeed it's proven he did and I'll not take our governments word for it. I'll wait for a body of folks that won't make money by dropping bombs) yet I see you time and time again suggest that by not bombing Syria to the Stone Age we somehow don't care or think Assad is evil. What I'm asking for is for our leaders to consider ALL the possibilities and if military action in WHAT EVER form it takes is indeed the ONLY solution. In addition, it appears that actual goal is regime change so who is going to replace him? You have to think further than Boom.

[hack89]

6. 23%

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

[darkangel218]

8. .

"All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon’s underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.

(Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as “defense spending,” then the number goes up significantly.)

U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

[hack89]

11. That is in line with what I posted. nt

[ocpagu]

10. Oh, yes, why letting them kill each other if we can save both sides the effort with missiles, right?

[darkangel218]

13. Does the use of weapons of mass destruction mean nothing to you? lol!

[ocpagu]

15. Yes, it does.

I do believe the only country in the planet that has used weapons of mass destruction against civilians shouldn't be pretending to have moral authority to decide on the issue.

[darkangel218]

16. Excuse me, Syria has used chemical weapons , which ARE WMD!!

NBC- Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

So by your logic, now Germany for example, has no right to decide or intervene, because of what Nazis did back in the day?? holy shit!!

[ocpagu]

18. Yes, sir, I DO think Germany should abstain to get involved in certain situations...

... because of what Nazis did back in the day. "We should look forward and forget about the past" won't work with me, sorry.

[darkangel218]

21. Im a female.

and LOL at the rest of your post.

[ocpagu]

24. Then, lady.

I understand. "LOL" has been your best argument so far.

[darkangel218]

27. The best i can come up with to your rethoric.

same old, same old.

we wronged in the past, we have no say. LMAO

buh bye.

[ocpagu]

32. NOT in the past. IN THE PRESENT. n/t

[tazkcmo]

40. Why are you LOLing?

This is serious crap. Not only do you want to kill more people you don't seem to give a crap about the can of worms you'd be willing to open so you can get your beauty sleep. Or give a crap about the folks in our military that have to do the actual killing and dying. Like I said, get a dog in the fight. (you or your son, brother, sister, father, mother. What ever.)


Oh, and LOL

[tazkcmo]

19. Germany was defeated, it's leaders punished and country ripped in half.

And what are the statute of limitations on atrocities? Can you say Nagasaki? Hiroshima? Agent Orange? White phospherous?

But open ended war is perfectly ok with you. Kill all you want. Just do it the RIGHT way.

[darkangel218]

23. Open war is not ok with me.

But past mistakes shouldn't force us to turn a blind eye and do nothing when its clear how insane Assad is.

[ocpagu]

34. First, you need to prove Assad is guilty, and you haven't so far.

Then, you need approval by the United Nations.

Finnally, you have to respond to criticism regarding obscure interests driving US actions.

"Let's bomb them because we are altruists" is not an acceptable argument.

[tazkcmo]

37. Guilt Shmilt.

We got bombs and it'll make us feel good. America always feels better after bombing a few brown folks.

[tazkcmo]

36. Thewre you go again

Not bombing is turning a blind eye. Kim is pretty crazy too. What about him? I'll get on the Google and send ya a list of insane leaders and you can prioritize them.

[tazkcmo]

42. Open war is ok with you

That's what you're calling for. Have you been listening to Russia? They really, really, REALLY don't want us to do this and have announced that they will bomb Saudi Arabia if we do. So now what? I'll be waiting for the predictable "We can't let Russia boss us around! USA!USA!"

[tazkcmo]

14. It's about WHO does the killing.

When we do it, it's "doing something". And don't get me started on efficiency!

[PDJane]

30. Depends on how you calculate it, and what you include.

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

If you include DOD, FBI counter-terrorism, International Affairs and all defense related spending, plus interest on previous borrowing, it's more like 1.4 Trillion. That doesn't include black ops. Without interest, it comes to just under 1 trillion dollars. So, the truth is somewhere between 25% and 33% of funding, especially if you pull the social security trust fund out of the equation.