suntzukali2 posted:

---

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/military-spending-2011-chart

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/military-spending-2011-chart

---

Social security spending is bigger and mandatory spending is just a hair less than military


It's time to look at all three of them since they compose 53% of the budget ...

---

Derrrr posted:

---

Even if they weren't, I don't buy the whole GDP thing. So we're rich. Does that really mean our military needs to be completely out of proportion with the rest of the world's armies? Would someone care to explain the logic on that? Because this is military imbalance.

---

Immortal_Haze posted:

---

Derrrr posted:

---

Even if they weren't, I don't buy the whole GDP thing. So we're rich. Does that really mean our military needs to be completely out of proportion with the rest of the world's armies? Would someone care to explain the logic on that? Because this is military imbalance.

---

If our spending/GDP ratio is in the same ballpark as other countries, how does that equate to our military being "completely out of proportion"? There's a whole lot of stupid the linked article.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Immortal_Haze posted:

---

Derrrr posted:

---

Even if they weren't, I don't buy the whole GDP thing. So we're rich. Does that really mean our military needs to be completely out of proportion with the rest of the world's armies? Would someone care to explain the logic on that? Because this is military imbalance.

---

If our spending/GDP ratio is in the same ballpark as other countries, how does that equate to our military being "completely out of proportion"? There's a whole lot of stupid the linked article.

---

because we are supporting a imperial war fighting force, not a defensive force.
how many other nations have troops stationed in a 135 countries?
really why do we need military forces spread out world wide?

---

Onslaught. posted:

---

Our military is too big to fail...

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

everybody wants to cut military spending until its time to close that plant or base in your home town.

well there are exceptions to the rule but the majority will scream "what about the jobs?"

---

Immortal_Haze posted:

---

Onslaught. posted:

---

Our military is too big to fail...

---

Tell that to the 2 troops stationed in Belize. They're not quite sure how to capture the entire country.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

suntzukali2 posted:

---

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/military-spending-2011-chart

---

Social security spending is bigger and mandatory spending is just a hair less than military


It's time to look at all three of them since they compose 53% of the budget ...

---

Social security was a self funding program that worked until the GOP god/savior Reagan raided it to pay for his Cold War against the Soviets.

---

TickyAtack posted:

---

Immortal_Haze posted:

---

Onslaught. posted:

---

Our military is too big to fail...

---

Tell that to the 2 troops stationed in Belize. They're not quite sure how to capture the entire country.

---

There's a guy in Thailand doing training camp.


Thailand beware.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Brother_Tempus posted:

---

[quote=suntzukali2 http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/military-spending-2011-chart

---

Social security was a self funding program that worked until the GOP god/savior Reagan raided it to pay for his Cold War against the Soviets.

---

Mangler_SC posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

everybody wants to cut military spending until its time to close that plant or base in your home town.

well there are exceptions to the rule but the majority will scream "what about the jobs?"

---

When the jobs are all taxpayer supported?

---

Mangler_SC posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

everybody wants to cut military spending until its time to close that plant or base in your home town.

well there are exceptions to the rule but the majority will scream "what about the jobs?"

---

When the jobs are all taxpayer supported?

---

Caledric posted:

---

Btw Sith since you obviously weren't bright enough to do the research... Those 135 countries we have troops in... all of them have one thing in common. They have a US Embassy or Ambassador. And where there is an Embassy or Ambassador... There are Marines.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Belize
Costa Rica
Cuba
Germany
Honduras
Iraq
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Kuwait
Malaysia
Mexico
Mongolia
Mozambique
Nepal
North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Thailand
United Arab Emirates

---

Caledric posted:

---

Btw Sith since you obviously weren't bright enough to do the research... Those 135 countries we have troops in... all of them have one thing in common. They have a US Embassy or Ambassador. And where there is an Embassy or Ambassador... There are Marines.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Immortal_Haze posted:

---

Derrrr posted:

---

Even if they weren't, I don't buy the whole GDP thing. So we're rich. Does that really mean our military needs to be completely out of proportion with the rest of the world's armies? Would someone care to explain the logic on that? Because this is military imbalance.

---

If our spending/GDP ratio is in the same ballpark as other countries, how does that equate to our military being "completely out of proportion"? There's a whole lot of stupid the linked article.

---

because we are supporting a imperial war fighting force, not a defensive force.
how many other nations have troops stationed in a 135 countries?
really why do we need military forces spread out world wide?

the list
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D'lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

All I ever wonder about when I read these threads is why 99% of the posters just bitch about which "side" keeps screwing the U.S. more, and never offering up a true constructive suggestion. If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.



(And, yes, obviously I'm one of those 99% people too, since I didn't offer up a solution. )

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

there is a 195 nations that are recognized and maintain diplomatic relations with the US do the math.

here you want the source info dig through this.
this is from 2009
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/defense.pdf

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

there is a 195 nations that are recognized and maintain diplomatic relations with the US do the math.

here you want the source info dig through this.
this is from 2009
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/defense.pdf

---

Dude just stop, you got wtfpwned by several people on this thread and no matter what you post your claim will still be wrong.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Caledric posted:

---

Btw Sith since you obviously weren't bright enough to do the research... Those 135 countries we have troops in... all of them have one thing in common. They have a US Embassy or Ambassador. And where there is an Embassy or Ambassador... There are Marines.

---

Although most of these locations are in the continental United States, 96 of them are in U.S. territories around the globe, and 702 of them are in foreign countries. But as Chalmers Johnson has documented, the figure of 702 foreign military installations is too low, for it does not include installations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan. Johnson estimates that an honest count would be closer to 1,000.

The number of countries that the United States has a presence in is staggering. According the U.S. Department of State's list of "Independent States in the World," there are 192 countries in the world, all of which, except Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, have diplomatic relations with the United States. All of these countries except one (Vatican City) are members of the United Nations. According to the Department of Defense publication, "Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country," the United States has troops in 135 countries. Here is the list:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

give me one good reason why we should have 70k troops in Europe are they sacred of big bad Russia still?

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

give me one good reason why we should have 70k troops in Europe are they sacred of big bad Russia still?

---

No one is saying we should, but that doesn't mean we have significant numbers of troops in all of those countries you listed.

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

there is a 195 nations that are recognized and maintain diplomatic relations with the US do the math.

here you want the source info dig through this.
this is from 2009
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/defense.pdf

---

Dude just stop, you got wtfpwned by several people on this thread and no matter what you post your claim will still be wrong.

---

really so its ok that we have troops world wide.
really why do we need 50K troops still in Germany alone, 70k total in europe?

The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 205,118 of its 1,425,113[1] active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories. Most of these overseas personnel are deployed in combat zones in the Middle east, as part of the War on Terror. Many of the remainder are located at installations activated during the Cold War, by which the US government sought to challenge the Soviet Union in the aftermath of World War II.



dark blue=More than 1000 US troops
light blue= More than 100 US troops
brown= Use of military facilities

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

give me one good reason why we should have 70k troops in Europe are they sacred of big bad Russia still?

---

No one is saying we should, but that doesn't mean we have significant numbers of troops in all of those countries you listed.

---

60% of standing active duty troops are stationed outside of US territory, in 2008 during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan that percentage reached as high as 76%.

---

Caledric posted:

---

Sith_Mauler posted:

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

[quote=Sith_Mauler]give me one good reason why we should have 70k troops in Europe are they sacred of big bad Russia still?

---

No one is saying we should, but that doesn't mean we have significant numbers of troops in all of those countries you listed.

---

60% of standing active duty troops are stationed outside of US territory, in 2008 during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan that percentage reached as high as 76%.

---

Club For Growth posted:

---

2012 Presidential White Paper #8

Congressman Ron Paul
The Club for Growth wrote a white paper on Rep. Ron Paul back in 2007. Most of the information below is from that report, but since Paul has been outspoken on several issues since then, we’ve updated his record to reflect those positions. Paul has a lifetime Club for Growth rating of 87%. The average House Republican score during that time period was 73%. Congressman Paul’s scores for the last six years (since the Club started issuing a scorecard) are:

2010: 90%
2009: 97%
2008: 88%
2007: 80%
2006: 83%
2005: 82%

---

Gaevren posted:

---

Didn't we have troops stationed in Germany and Japan because after WWII they agreed to not have standing militaries- so we agreed to station troops there so they wouldn't get smashed by other countries? I could be totally wrong but that's what I seem to remember. Of course by the time we were stationed there in 1999 they had at least some kind of military because I remember my husband going on exercises with German troops.

---

tillsb posted:

---

Stormyblade posted:

---

All I ever wonder about when I read these threads is why 99% of the posters just bitch about which "side" keeps screwing the U.S. more, and never offering up a true constructive suggestion. If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.



(And, yes, obviously I'm one of those 99% people too, since I didn't offer up a solution. )

---

Don't be dumb I offered a solution once. Make me your ruler and we would have a giant pizza and beer party for everyone.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

People wonder why the U.S. is broke

Wonder why no more.

http://youtu.be/hNacjBldkuA

---

Ptilk posted:

---

We aren't broke.

We aren't close to being broke.

There is more money in the US now than at any time in history. Our GDP is bigger, our GDP per capita is bigger.

We have a shortage of government funds at the moment due to a huge recession and huge tax breaks for the entities who hold most of that wealth.

Equating that to being broke as a nation is stupid. We aren't. SS isn't going broke anytime soon, medicare isn't going broke anytime soon, we aren't in danger of defaulting on any loans unless the idiotic ideologues in Congress choose to do so to make political points with the mouth breathing masses.

But yeah, we do spend a hell of a lot too much on our bloated, inefficient, and ridiculously huge military. That much is certainly accurate.

---