Ike Was Right About War Machine

[WoodPeckr]

Andy Rooney Thinks Our Military Machine Is Bloated

June 18, 2006

I'm not really clear how much a billion dollars is but the United States — our United States — is spending $5.6 billion a month fighting this war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into.

We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today.

More than 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?

Now we have the hurricanes to pay for. One way our government pays for a lot of things is by borrowing from countries like China.

Another way the government is planning to pay for the war and the hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like Medicare prescriptions, highway construction, farm payments, AMTRAK, National Public Radio and loans to graduate students. Do these sound like the things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?

I'll tell you where we ought to start saving: on our bloated military establishment.

We're paying for weapons we'll never use.

No other Country spends the kind of money we spend on our military. Last year Japan spent $42 billion. Italy spent $28 billion, Russia spent only $19 billion. The United States spent $455 billion.

We have 8,000 tanks for example. One Abrams tank costs 150 times as much as a Ford station wagon.

We have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons — enough to destroy all of mankind.

We're spending $200 million a year on bullets alone. That's a lot of target practice. We have 1,155,000 enlisted men and women and 225,000 officers. One officer to tell every five enlisted soldier what to do. We have 40,000 colonels alone and 870 generals.

We had a great commander in WWII, Dwight Eisenhower. He became President and on leaving the White House in 1961, he said this: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. …"

Well, Ike was right. That's just what’s happened.


By Andy Rooney © MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[danmand]

I hope to live to see the day, when daycare centers, hospitals and schools have all the money they need, and the military is holding a bake sale to raise money for new equipment.

 

[4uimcrazy]

Maybe we should use them?

Andy Rooney Thinks Our Military Machine Is Bloated

We're paying for weapons we'll never use.

We have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons — enough to destroy all of mankind.

That would take care of the problem, now wouldn't it?

 

[danmand]

We need a strong defense. One need only read
history to understand that a strong military is as
important as a strong economy.

You say DEFENSE, but I have not noticed the US being invaded lately, and the STRONG DEFENSE could not even protect its own headquarters from a rogue attack.

The problem with a STRONG DEFENSE is that it will inevitably be used OFFENSIVELY, which you must have noticed the US have done repeatedly in support of economic goals.

And when it comes to history, it has tought us that empires disintegrate from within.

 

[LancsLad]

The best defense is a strong offense. That worked well when dealing with soveriegn states and is adapting to the new reality of dealing with scum from tin pot liitle rogue states that have oil money.

I would rather spend the money defending myself than trust in the humanitarian nature (not) of those fuckwads not to attack us again.

 

[danmand]

ENGLAND RULES

England rules England.

 

[lustyhombre]

England rules England.

.....and poorly so.....

 

[danmand]

True, a country is always in jeopardy of being attacked.
Fortunately or luckily there have not been any additional
attacks. You can always hit some country in a suprise
attack. A sustained assault is another thing.
True. But, we are dealing with a post-industrial, global economy.
The rules of engagement have been changed. We must adjust
to the new economic and political challenges. One thing is for
sure, they'll be different from the last challenge. History of
both the British Empire and American the military is repleat with
examples of the use of military power for economic ends. That
is standard operating procedures, and has been for a long time.
And weak countries are attacked and defeated from without.
Whether powerful empire or weak city state, they all eventually
collapse. So what's your point?

I doubt that I can explain it to your satisfaction, as long as you subscribe to the view that the role of the US military complex is to DEFEND the USA.

Let us contemplate the recent past: The ATTACKS on the US were from Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, and I am sure I have forgotten a few more vicious attacks on the US. Have you ever read any books by the deviant, socialistic author George Orwell?

 

[danmand]

Once again, my post must not have been clear.

When you're a member of G-8, NATO and other alliances
you have a duty to that alliance to live up to you're end
of the bargain.

You're looking in the rear view mirror and trying to find
a path through future fields of thorns.

You point out the lesser struggles and miss the major
threats of the 20th Century. Industrial nations whose
leaders adopted fascism/communism as their credo for
totalitarianism. Need I run through the list of countries
that fell under that form of leadership?

Those battles were primarily the result of the cult of
the personality and a totalitarian view primarily bred
in Europe.

Now we're dealing with failed nation-states, natural
calamities and other humanitarian crises that requires
a different paradigm. The global economy requires
a mobile, flexable, intelligent, skilled military to deal
with various cultures totally foreign to our sensibilities.

Look to the future and not at the rear view mirror.

You are as clear as a glass of water, and about as deep.

There is no NEED for the US to dominate the world, it is a WANT. The global economy does not NEED an emperical USA, as a matter of fact, if you randomly polled humans on this planet, you would find that a majority would like the USA to stay home and take proper care of its own population.

 

[someone]

The empirical economy you refer to is
the global economy, and Canada is
an active emember .

I think he must mean "Imperial". Otherwise I have no idea what he could be refering to.

 

[danmand]

I think he must mean "Imperial". Otherwise I have not idea what he could be refering to.

Sorry, for the misspelling.

 

[danmand]

Cheap shots fired across the bow, eh.
We'll take care of our foreign policy.
I suggest you do the same in Canada.
The current administration doesn't
reflect the attitude of the majority
of Americans.

The empirial economy you refer to is
the global economy, and Canada is
an active emember .

You never deal with all of the current
problems we are dealing with.

You're arguments are only valid when
you have a devil to attack.

We are all aware of the story, that the US only reluctantly is taken up the role of world policeman (aka dominator). It is similar to the way the white people took upon themselves the great burden of improving the conditions of colored people through colonialism and slavery.

But let us for a moment take all the philosophical arguments, as well as the current administration off the table, and humour me by answering the following two questions:

1. What benefit was there for the world from the US killing Allende?

2. Do you find his killing justified?

 

[danmand]

Why won't you answer the simple questions?

There are always lofty designs and objectives, but the devil is in the details, as you must surely know.

 

[danmand]

Do you know the Canadians in Afghanistan do not
have helicopters? They have to drive to the combat
zone. CBC 6/28/06.

You're putting your own military in danger.
Does that fit your paradigm? Shame on you.

Bring them home!

 

[danmand]

There is no justification for many of the policies my
country took and still takes. There are many, many
justifications for my country's involvement in the
global struggle for security. That's what it's all
about. A secure, though slippery, goal that may
never be attained.

I'm supposing you're taking Alliende as some kind of
litnus test for morality. Bad decision, not evil decision.
Do I support that? No. Do I support the Warsaw Pact
Countries living under the steel hammer of Soviet Control?
No. And thank the almighty that many of those countries
are now members of NATO.

Is NATO morally bankrupt? Please provide a response.

You do want security in it's many forms from military
to economic to social and cultural, don't you?
Well, others pay for that security that you so desire
with their lives and their fortunes.

Join the world community and don't play that passivist,
anti-military card with me when there never was nor
will there ever be security. It's earned, not inherited.

The world at large did not ask for a paX usa, because that is just another word for imperial dominance. And I think that many of the actions are evil, not just bad actions, an example being the execution of Allende.

That is the fundamental problem with empires, and that is the reason that the US empire will disintegrate from within. No president or leader gets up one morning and decides to massacre women and children in Mai Lai. And no president gets up one morning and decides to torture prisoners in Abu Graib. But it is inevitable that atrocities like that happen if a country is pursuing imperial (not emperical) goals.

And in todays world, with instant TV and thousands of investigative journalists, atrocities cannot be kept under the rug for long, and the american people do not have the stomach for these kind of atrocities that are inevitable in empire building. (or what you call security in it's many forms from military to economic to social and cultural).

 

[danmand]

Coward. Arm them so they serve you're
isolationist behind from the struggles in
the world we live. Get a toddler's story
to read while you slip into slumber tonight.

Now I think you may be going a little crazy. I am not in the line of fire whatever outcome is taken in Afghanistan. So it is irrelevant, to say the least.

The history of Afghanistan shows that outside powers have had no lasting effect on the country.

 

[danmand]

I give up. We're on different wave
length's and there's no transcending.

Agreed.