General Discussion

OceanEcosystem

(275 posts)

10. Depends on what you mean by "stopped."

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:52 PM

Feb 2013

Technically, the armed forces of the Allied nations "stopped" World War II in the sense that they won it, and thus brought an end to the war.

Now if by "stopped," you mean "prevented," well then, it didn't prevent World War II from breaking out, but then again Hitler was probably bent on conquest anyway and it would have been very hard to dissuade him.

Which brings me to another point: It's not just enough to have a strong military. One also needs the right leadership and approach that comes with it. There are some who argue that one reason that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s was because other nations did not show sufficient indication that his invasion would be resisted with armed force. The United States had a strong military, all right, but had the United States indicated to Saddam from the very beginning that an invasion of Kuwait would result in U.S. military intervention, Saddam might have been dissuaded from doing so in the first place.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let us tie military spending to a percentage of tax revenues [View all] Angry Dragon Feb 2013 OP

Or, base it on actual work accomplished and products produced. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #1

Military accomplishment is often in what does NOT take place rather than what does. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #4

How's that worked so far? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #6

I disagree. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #8

Maybe. But, how has having a bloated military stopped wars for us? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #9

Depends on what you mean by "stopped." OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #10

So, how did our "strong military" do in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #13

Not the military's fault. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #14

Which can only give one pause in turning over a huge machine to incompetents. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #17

To the best of my understanding, OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #19

If they go to trial. See drone operators and torturers for reference. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #21

Well, Sherman A1 Feb 2013 #16

As I recall, it wasn't the military that stopped the wars. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #20

Not to take this discussion off-track, but......... OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #23

As a pacifist, I don't see war as an answer. Rather, I see it as an avenue to more war. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #28

So what about existing security treaties? OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #37

Yes. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #45

So I guess America's promise, signed on a treaty, wouldn't mean anything after all. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #46

Tsk. Tsk. See treaties with various tribes of Native Americans for precedents. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #47

Still doesn't make it right to break it. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #48

Well, Sherman A1 Feb 2013 #25

And history shows that when a country finds itself involved avebury Feb 2013 #43

Agree something must be done. think Feb 2013 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #3

I find the 50% figure very doubtful. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #5

Do you have figures to dispute my claim?? Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #11

The data just doesn't support the claim. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #12

I have some problems with this Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #22

50% of discretionary spending. hay rick Feb 2013 #49

Let's create a schedule for Peace, the gradual diminuition of defense spending. Coyotl Feb 2013 #7

Isn't that already close to the current situation though? OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #15

$3.2 Trillion was brought in Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #18

Today about 19% of budget goes to Defense tritsofme Feb 2013 #24

Thanks. That's closer to what I thought. n/t. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #26

How is Social Security part of the budget?? Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #27

Even if it is, it may be just listed there for information's sake, to show how much was spent. N/t. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #29

It is listed there as part of the budget and the monies brought in by it as revenue Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #30

And if you take out everything but defense it goes up to 100% tritsofme Feb 2013 #31

I am arguing that SS is not part of the budget Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #32

I just don't understand how the way Social Security is treated in the budget is relevant tritsofme Feb 2013 #33

Because you are adding in what is spent on SS into total federal spending Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #35

Well, you started the thread with "tax revenue" in the title. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #36

Defense comes out of the budget, how much of SS comes from the budget?? Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #38

Leaving these semantic arguments behind tritsofme Feb 2013 #39

In this case... dems_rightnow Feb 2013 #41

Social security is self funded and shouldn't be on that chart. It's not part of the general fund. JVS Feb 2013 #34

If you want to reduce military spending Revanchist Feb 2013 #40

I an not really against military spending just a fair comparison with other spending Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #42

What we really need to cut out is wasteful spending. OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #44