BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.

Subject: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 11:29 AM

Long a punchline for many jokes, McGovern is still relevant. Remember what we later learned about his opponent in that presidential election.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/17/1007853/-George-McGoverns-Open-Letter-to-President-Obama

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: lefthanded guitar
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 03:20 PM

Butter vs. guns is an oft trod subjects by liberal thinkers. But the truth is, we need a strong defense. I usually line up on the side of more progressive thinkers, but at this approaching anniversary of 9/11, I can't help but be glad we've had one.

The one thing (I personally believe) that can really make a dent in our national debt, perhaps jumpstart our economy a bit, and relieve the working (and middle and lower) class of draconian budgets cuts is to raise the taxes on our wealthiest citizens. Some people say the rich are ALWAYS exempt, but I think it's time they kick in as well.

Otherwise this democratic republic is heading back to before the tea party and becoming a nation that is controlled under a royal family of wealthy rulers.

I also am disappointed in Obama (tho I think the alternative would have not been any improvement.) He just doesn't seem to be tough or politically saavy enough to fight congress. Maybe no one could have. But I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 07:06 PM

We cannot determine the future of the Middle East.

Most enlightening is the amount China spends on defense (8%). They are aggressive on their borders but don't worry about the rest of the world. They have a new aircraft carrier, it will help to put pressure on Japan and Taiwan, both near their territory, when they struggle for seafloor oil and gas.

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: Janie
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 07:49 PM

Thanks for posting the link, sg.

I don't think one can interpret that defense spending wheel easily. I find myself wanting more information. Some of the first questions that come to my mind are as follows:

1. What did that wheel look like post Vietnam and pre 9/11 and the 2nd Iraqi invasion?
2. If the USA cut its defense expenditures in Europe and Southeast Asia, would countries in those regions increase their expenditures significantly?
3. If they did not, what would be the likely results, and how does one figure out what results would be likely?
4. If one is able to rationally project the likely results, how does one weigh the costs and benefits of those results vs the costs and benefits of the current status quo? What or whose yardstick or scale?

I'm sure other questions will come to mind.

I have no doubt the level of military spending by the USA is higher than is in the best interests of the country or of the world, but where is the fulcrum between too much and not enough? Again, who decides where the balance point is at any given moment in time.

The world and the people and institutions which compose human society are chock full of motives, philosophy and machiavellian politics. Set all that aside for a moment and think only in terms of stability vs chaos. It is not a straight-line continuum. It is an arc that nearly forms a circle.

I don't have my own answers to these questions. I'm just saying....

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: Janie
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 07:58 PM

I had similar thoughts, Q. However, I also think that will change as China's economic star continues to rise. Ditto India.

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 08:59 PM

Toward the end of the Clinton years, the Department of Defence budget fell to something above 16% of the Federal Budget.

George W. Bush tried to reverse the cuts and the Defence spending went back to over 19%.

This is nothing compared to the 1963 Kennedy Defence spending of 47% and the 1968 the Johnson Viet Nam era spending of 45% of the US Federal Budget.

The War on Terrorism involved aggressive military actions in the Fillipines, Yemen and Somalia, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also involved a major investment in improverd saftey and defence measures involving our foreign military bases and other holdings.

The War on terrorism has cost another 1.2 trillion in ten years, Sept.11, 2001 to Sept 11, 2011.

That is only 3.8% of all US Federal spending in the last 10 years. Please note the "Federal Spending" and "Federal Budget" are not the same thing.

The War on Terrorism is an "off-budget" item, but so are the so-called "earmarks" that our politicians use to but votes.

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Aug 11 - 09:41 PM

So George thinks we need to close up shop and cutback in major ways. Get out of many places we have been all over the world.

Hmmmm.............Isn't that the same program Ron Paul pushes?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: kendall
Date: 30 Aug 11 - 07:49 AM

The reason we need a strong defense is simple. WE need it! We have created so many enemies around the world that we must man the ramparts 24/7.
I'm convinced that if we would just learn to mind our own business, as Canada does, we would not need to be spending 51% of our budget on war. Damn it, we are in the war business and have been for many years.
President Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex and he was right.


"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works in any country." (Hermann Goering."

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut.
Never ask the military if we have an enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: George McGovern Open Letter to Obama.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Aug 11 - 10:01 AM

I think it is time that the Germans, French, Japanese and South Koreans fended for themselves. They can certainly afford it. There has been a peace dividend for the last 60 years and they have enjoyed it.

Kendall as a proud Canadian and a proud resident of this country. I would say that the Canadian model is not enough. Canada depends upon the umbrella of the US for much of its defense and does not spend enough on the military. On the other hand the Canadian military has always been an adjunct to the British Empire's forces and now to NATO, prepared to ramp up in times of emergency. I am sure that that is the way her allies prefer her to be rather than ramping up militarily and forcing her neighbors, The US, Denmark and USSR to react.


But the question posed here is how much less can the US spend and still keep her influence? Do we need the capability to project power world wide with aircraft carriers and 60,000 person military bases?

Projects like the F22 and joint strike fighter are becoming obsolete as drone technology grows. Our only recent military/strategic successes have been in "force mulitplier" situations where we have provided support and training and let the locals do the fighting.

We need more special forces, fewer bases and more high tech such as AWACs and drones.

Frankly, I think we are headed in the right direction and Petraeus and Pinneta(?) are just the folks to lead the way.