Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Large Military

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:16:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:12:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:04:47 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:55:53 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An ultimatum supported by an assertion. Compelling.

Let's try as a question - do you consider yourself a citizen of this country?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Legally, I'm a citizen.

Do you consider yourself a citizen?

(it's not a hard question. I didn't ask what the law considered you. I didn't ask what your mom considered you. I asked what you considered you.)

(though, your meander through existence philosophy is an incredibly weak one...we'll get to that in a moment, though)

Presupposing that it is weak--and oversimplifying it as "meandering"--is a luxury that you do not have. Also, trying to foreshadow your argument does not help you.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:22:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:16:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:12:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:04:47 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Let's try as a question - do you consider yourself a citizen of this country?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Legally, I'm a citizen.

Do you consider yourself a citizen?

(it's not a hard question. I didn't ask what the law considered you. I didn't ask what your mom considered you. I asked what you considered you.)

Don't patronize me, malcolm. I've had a really shitty day, and, while I enjoy getting on DDO to talk about stuff, I am not in the mood (nor do I have any incentive) to deal with the whole provocative, arrogant, frustration-releasing thing you like to do, and I am not interested in talking to you if this is how you're going to behave toward me. So, please stop.

That aside, I don't consider myself a citizen, no. I also don't consider myself "outside"--I'm indifferent.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:29:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:16:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:12:05 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:04:47 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Let's try as a question - do you consider yourself a citizen of this country?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Legally, I'm a citizen.

Do you consider yourself a citizen?

(it's not a hard question. I didn't ask what the law considered you. I didn't ask what your mom considered you. I asked what you considered you.)

Don't patronize me, malcolm. I've had a really shitty day, and, while I enjoy getting on DDO to talk about stuff, I am not in the mood (nor do I have any incentive) to deal with the whole provocative, arrogant, frustration-releasing thing you like to do, and I am not interested in talking to you if this is how you're going to behave toward me. So, please stop.

That aside, I don't consider myself a citizen, no. I also don't consider myself "outside"--I'm indifferent.

If you don't consider yourself a citizen, then you're not.

You're in my country illegally at this point.

Please leave.

(sorry you had a bad day, man...I know how that goes and how it f*cks up your entire mood. we can stop now if I'm making things worse...not my intent)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:43:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:29:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:16:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Do you consider yourself a citizen?

(it's not a hard question. I didn't ask what the law considered you. I didn't ask what your mom considered you. I asked what you considered you.)

Don't patronize me, malcolm. I've had a really shitty day, and, while I enjoy getting on DDO to talk about stuff, I am not in the mood (nor do I have any incentive) to deal with the whole provocative, arrogant, frustration-releasing thing you like to do, and I am not interested in talking to you if this is how you're going to behave toward me. So, please stop.

That aside, I don't consider myself a citizen, no. I also don't consider myself "outside"--I'm indifferent.

If you don't consider yourself a citizen, then you're not.

You're in my country illegally at this point.

Please leave.

This leaves unaddressed several problems:

1. Your position still assumes the form of a command, rather than an argument.

2. Your position still fails to reckon with the false dilemma between assimilation (here in the form of the vague injunction to "be part of the country") and expulsion (in the form, I assume, of [self-]deportation). What is most worrisome about this are the near-unavoidable consequences--imprisonment, police brutality, etc.--of a politics that cannot tolerate the presence of someone, like a refugee, a stateless person, or another conscious non-citizen, who desires to identify neither as a member of the group or as someone excluded (and therefore, from the perspective of the group, inferior).

3. In addition to my indifference to the institution of citizenship, I am also indifferent to the law and its prescriptions.

(sorry you had a bad day, man...I know how that goes and how it f*cks up your entire mood. we can stop now if I'm making things worse...not my intent)

I can enjoy a conversation about this--I would just sincerely appreciate omitting, if possible, the little jabs or hints of snideness, if only for tonight (I assume your contentions about citizenship are genuine). I know you're nicer when you're not being insincere, and it would just be good if we could play it that way instead. Please and thank you.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:46:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
One further problem:

4. I think you make the unwarranted assumption that this country (which, given your objection to my presence, I take to denote the territory) belongs to you and the group with which you identify, and that you possess some collective right of violent exclusion that you may exercise on anyone who refuses to assimilate.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:38:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

That is because they are cold and uncaring towards their people and do not care if they suffer from embargo's (a result of is using our economic influence). What's supposed to happen when the country doesn't cave in to the embargo's is that the people are supposed to rebel due to their suffering.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:40:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

If you believe in hegemony and that the US is meant to be the hegemonus state then you do believe our military budget is necessary. That is the point I am trying to make, but you are failing to be receptive to it.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 7:41:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

I didn't say that I liked the usage of our military, I said if we did use our large military the way I explained, it would be beneficial to peace. You are straw manning here.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:13:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:46:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

http://www.regjeringen.no...

http://www.bmj.com...

400K deaths due to war each year since WW2. 2013 - 1947 = 76

76 X 400,000 = 30.4 million

That doesn't count genocides since WW2

http://simple.wikipedia.org...


That puts us right around 35 million dead due to war since WW2.

Can I be sarcastic again?

No you can't because even with your inflated numbers and the egregious undercounting of casualties in WWII (which is nearly twice your number), you still concede that the casualties the world has sustained over the last 70 years are on par with the casualties sustained during 5-6 years of conflict. This doesn't even take into consideration that as a percentage of the population, these casualties represent a far smaller portion of people living.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:21:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:54:42 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:27:56 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:35:28 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:34:30 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

Mainly because their fanatical, or they know we won't use it most likely.

Would that change if we spent 400 billion a year on defense?

We spend 600 billion. We spend well over 2 trillion on entitlements. If you want to save money, focus on what we are actually spending on.

Regarding the bolded, what about the rest of the Middle East, South Korea, Taiwan, SE Asia, and more recently the former USSR? And China is now part of the WTO.

Oh, but I guess NK and Iran are more important. :/

What about the rest? Your position pre supposes a more violent world with nuclear weapons and without us hegemony. There is absolutely no way to prove what history would look like either way but we can make best decisions as to what will serve the world best going forward. Of which I don't think a bloated military budget and adventurism can be justified as a net positive.

How does my position pre-suppose a more violent world? Read the OP, I am for maintaining a large military presence. I am for US hegemony. This position results in more peace, and less war.

I think YOUR position pre-supposes the forfeiting of this hegemony. Then it doesn't really matter at that point, doesn't it? Without the hegemony, we will not be able to sustain this kind of military expenditure, small as it is as a portion of our GDP. We would lose our economic clout, and all the other dominoes will fall.

Again, your misconception of a "bloated military budget" flies in the face of historical data dating back to WWII. Expenditure is close to, if not exceeding, the lowest level relative to GDP over the past 70+ years. Given our ability to retain economic clout (this is unfortunately a very questionable given now), we would be able to easily sustain current military spending. We could even add another 30% to the defense budget to account for cyber security, and STILL be spending well below 5% of GDP on military expenditure.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:23:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:56:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
*cough*Cold War logic*cough*

This is no longer just logic, but historical fact. The Cold War is over, the data is in. We are imminently more civilized now than we were before the Cold War, as measured by global casualties from warfare.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:27:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:43:57 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:29:39 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:16:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Do you consider yourself a citizen?

(it's not a hard question. I didn't ask what the law considered you. I didn't ask what your mom considered you. I asked what you considered you.)

Don't patronize me, malcolm. I've had a really shitty day, and, while I enjoy getting on DDO to talk about stuff, I am not in the mood (nor do I have any incentive) to deal with the whole provocative, arrogant, frustration-releasing thing you like to do, and I am not interested in talking to you if this is how you're going to behave toward me. So, please stop.

That aside, I don't consider myself a citizen, no. I also don't consider myself "outside"--I'm indifferent.

If you don't consider yourself a citizen, then you're not.

You're in my country illegally at this point.

Please leave.

This leaves unaddressed several problems:

1. Your position still assumes the form of a command, rather than an argument.

2. Your position still fails to reckon with the false dilemma between assimilation (here in the form of the vague injunction to "be part of the country") and expulsion (in the form, I assume, of [self-]deportation). What is most worrisome about this are the near-unavoidable consequences--imprisonment, police brutality, etc.--of a politics that cannot tolerate the presence of someone, like a refugee, a stateless person, or another conscious non-citizen, who desires to identify neither as a member of the group or as someone excluded (and therefore, from the perspective of the group, inferior).

3. In addition to my indifference to the institution of citizenship, I am also indifferent to the law and its prescriptions.

(sorry you had a bad day, man...I know how that goes and how it f*cks up your entire mood. we can stop now if I'm making things worse...not my intent)

I can enjoy a conversation about this--I would just sincerely appreciate omitting, if possible, the little jabs or hints of snideness, if only for tonight (I assume your contentions about citizenship are genuine). I know you're nicer when you're not being insincere, and it would just be good if we could play it that way instead. Please and thank you.

My answer to this is extremely simple. If you don't like the state of current affairs, challenge the system. If you see yourself losing such a challenge, then malcolmxy's choices are valid and represent your full list of options. You can stay as an American citizen, and accept the responsibilities inherent in citizenship, or you can renounce your citizenship. If you do, your presence here is indeed illegal, and the US would be authorized under law to deal with you accordingly.

You may question the validity of such law. Again, challenge the system. See who wins.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 8:28:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

Define "necessary".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:29:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:10:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

Yes, because if there's one thing our military has done, it is act as a force for global peace.

Count the casualties globally since WWII. Then count the casualties during WWII. So, erase your sarcasm, and you actually get a true statement.

Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:45:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 7:38:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

That is because they are cold and uncaring towards their people and do not care if they suffer from embargo's (a result of is using our economic influence). What's supposed to happen when the country doesn't cave in to the embargo's is that the people are supposed to rebel due to their suffering.

And we know all this going in, we know sanctions have never worked and only hurt the people, yet we sanction away as if its ever helped us achieve anything. Countries never cave to sanctions, try respect and diplomacy, it has a far better track record. Why are we posturing? They pose zero threat militarily, yet we hit the people with sanctions as if that helps the situation.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 10:50:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 8:28:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

Define "necessary".

Google it, I'm sure you can locate definitions of words on the internet.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 12:30:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:28:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think a decent argument can be made that simply having a large military can actually be beneficial to peace. For example, most of the time, the united states can avoid war with nations simply by exerting their economic influence on nations. When this does not work, we should use our large standing army/military as a deterrent to war, it's existence is enough for most sensible nations to want to avoid war. I am starting to respect and agree with wrich's idea that hegemony is not bad when it is done correctly, and it can actually help the cause of peace, rather than be detrimental to it.

America having a large military and projecting force such that potential challengers have an enormous incentive not to attack is at once a cause and insurance of peace to the degree that potential challengers rationally calculate the likelihood of their strategic failure. Another state, like Russia for instance, though it may project power, may be less inclined to insure global peace than the United States.

Economic interdependency does have the effect of promoting peaceful diplomatic relations, all else being equal, but at the core of international relations the reason the United States enjoys a position of hegemonic sovereignty is because of its exceptional military strength. Peace in this world begins and ends with the US defense industry, in consequence. US hegemony is not only good -it is necessary to that end.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 1:56:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:45:04 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 7:38:15 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:33:11 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If we only spent 4x what China does on the military you think nations will all of the sudden start picking fights with us? Our military hasn't done anything to avoid wars, mutual assured destruction keeps the major powers at bay and our military might hasn't forced North Korea or Iran to fall in line.

That is because they are cold and uncaring towards their people and do not care if they suffer from embargo's (a result of is using our economic influence). What's supposed to happen when the country doesn't cave in to the embargo's is that the people are supposed to rebel due to their suffering.

And we know all this going in, we know sanctions have never worked and only hurt the people, yet we sanction away as if its ever helped us achieve anything. Countries never cave to sanctions, try respect and diplomacy, it has a far better track record. Why are we posturing? They pose zero threat militarily, yet we hit the people with sanctions as if that helps the situation.
1. The sanctions against Britain in the 50s worked
2. Respect and diplomacy? Like Obamas fail START program? Respect and diplomacy = lead from behind.
3. The reason they pose less of a military threat is often because of sanctions. How much more powerful would our enemies be if their military was funded by money from our markets? You cant assume that lifting economic sanctions on a country will immediately benefit the citizens when the government is trying to fund arms programs.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:19:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We sanctioned Britain in the 50s?
Like I said, sanctions never work. You are really going to argue that if there weren't sanctions on Iran and North Korea, that they would be formidable military foes? I'd debate that any day.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:20:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?
So you want to force the military to more with less resources. That doesn't make sense. The united states cut its defense spending right before both world wars, Korean war, and the Vietnam war. And when Britain cut their Navy in the 80s, Argentina immediately invaded the falkand islands due to lack of deterrence. Without our carriers presence in hormuz, how long do you think it would take for some countries to start fighting to fill our power void?

So yes, the world would likely become a lot become more belligerent if we cut our military.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:32:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:20:07 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?
So you want to force the military to more with less resources. That doesn't make sense. The united states cut its defense spending right before both world wars, Korean war, and the Vietnam war. And when Britain cut their Navy in the 80s, Argentina immediately invaded the falkand islands due to lack of deterrence. Without our carriers presence in hormuz, how long do you think it would take for some countries to start fighting to fill our power void?

So yes, the world would likely become a lot become more belligerent if we cut our military.

Put two carriers in hormuz, put one in suez, put one in panama, put one on each cost, put one in hawaii.
You're saying if we don't spend 160 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan last year, Iran is going to take the straight of hormuz?
I'm saying the military should do less with less.
You're excuse for ever expanding military spending is that the Brit's couldn't maintain a territory halfway around the world?
I'm sure the 3000 people living in the Falklands are of vital importance to international peace.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:37:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The argument I keep hearing is that if we don't spend 700 billion we'd might as well be Switzerland and the floodgates will open with belligerent nations grabbing vital resources.(which belong to them in the beginning)
I love that somehow we are in charge of the Straight of Hormuz. We'll sanction one country, support with massive arms the dictatorship of one, invade one multiple times and pay massive sums of money to keep another under our thumb.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
1Percenter
Posts: 862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:38:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:19:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We sanctioned Britain in the 50s?
Like I said, sanctions never work. You are really going to argue that if there weren't sanctions on Iran and North Korea, that they would be formidable military foes? I'd debate that any day.
Yed, during the Suez crisis. Sanctions aren't supposed to be a means of causing regime change. They can work if they are used properly. They may not have a comparable military, but their nuclear programs would be much more of a threat.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 2:45:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 2:38:30 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 2/27/2013 2:19:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
We sanctioned Britain in the 50s?
Like I said, sanctions never work. You are really going to argue that if there weren't sanctions on Iran and North Korea, that they would be formidable military foes? I'd debate that any day.
Yed, during the Suez crisis. Sanctions aren't supposed to be a means of causing regime change. They can work if they are used properly. They may not have a comparable military, but their nuclear programs would be much more of a threat.

We've never put sanctions on Britain in the 50s. I maintain that sanctions never work.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:02:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:50:23 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:28:40 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:44:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:38:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2013 10:29:25 PM, lewis20 wrote:
So our current military budget is sustainable?

Military budget only makes up around 20% of the US budget, so yes it is. While we do have a deficit, other material can be cut instead.

Note this doesn't necessarily mean the military budget should or shouldn't be cut, just that it is sustainable.

Every part of the budget is sustainable when taken on its own. You can justify spending on everything based on the fact that there's something else that can be cut. It doesn't change the fact that current military spending levels are completely unnecessary.

Define "necessary".

Google it, I'm sure you can locate definitions of words on the internet.

Obviously I meant define the context within which you are using the word. Obviously I am asking because I find whatever context you are using to be wholly unrealistic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2013 3:07:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 1:08:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:39:06 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:39:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 8:22:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 1:58:36 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Any discrepancies can be attributed to nuclear weapons, the top dozen most powerful nations leave each other to peace because the next great war is the end.

Exactly. This state of affairs more or less guarantees peace. That is important to note.

So then why do we need 11 super carriers, when only a few other countries even have 1? Why are filling mass graveyards with unneeded and unwanted Abrams tanks? There is no reason to have a military as large as we do.

Just to advance the conversation a little--I suspect a realist would counter that it is precisely because the United States maintains such a massive military budget that many other countries don't feel the need to do so, given troop commitments to the far corners of the world--e.g., much of Western Europe, Japan, Australia--and there are many other countries, particularly states in MENA--e.g., Saudi Arabia, Egypt--to whom we offer military aid of both the financial and the material sort. This also explains why the countries immediately following the US in expenditures (the weighty spending differential notwithstanding) are China and Russia.

But that argument has nothing to do with cutting the military budget. Would the USA not still be a military super power if we only spent 600 billion a year on defense? Is there a nation or entity anywhere in the world that would become more belligerent only facing down 7 super carriers?

The answer to this is simple. No, but you are discounting the entrance of a 3rd party, or a 4th, or a 5th party.

The US spends more than the next 26 nations combined, because there is a possibility that many of them may ally against the US if given the chance.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.