It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Arms Buildup Rivals Hitler and Stalin

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Yes we did give it to the north but why were we in Korea anyways? Why are we in 160 countries right now that is my point. Its like if there is any war out there one way or another we will be attacked because we are all over. That is my point we are not the worlds police. My taxpayer money and I paid over 60k this year in taxes is going for imperialistic views that I dont agree with,




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, because there's no reason to replace planes that are older than most of the crews flying them. Or planes that are falling out of the sky. Or weapons that don't work. Or to pay for the war we're fighting (and whether you agree with it or not, we have to finish what we start). The AVERAGE age of the mainstay of the USAF (the F-15) is almost 26 years old. The B-52 was last built in the early 1960s, the B-1s in the 1980s, and even some of the B-2s are more than 15 years old. They have PASSED the age where they should have been retired, and are still being pushed hard. Almost 21% of our F-16 fleet is grounded for fuselage and wing cracks, and even the C-17 which is still being produced is showing fuselage cracks from the pace of operations we have them under.


lol my recruiter told me a story of when he flew in some cargo plane and there was gas leaking out the back...
he told the pilot about it and they laughed at him.
They said, "don't worry about it until you stop seeing gas come out!"

lol get it... cause then they would be out of gas...


anyway, yeah, the planes are so old that these things are now common problems...

our troops should always have the best equipment, cause their lives count on it.

Yes we need a new infrastructure, but we can't leave the troops out of it.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


"Either you create your future, or you become the victim of a future someone creates for you."

[edit on 6-4-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The military, the national highway system, and some disaster aid are the only things that the Federal Government should be concerned with in terms of funding. Much of anything else is almost moot and is the responsibility of the individual states. The military is really the only thing that is required by the US Constitution. I am not really a fan of socialism.
And by the way, socialism has never really made much of a difference for the USA since WWII was the real factor in getting much of the world out of the Great Depression.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


I agree with you totally my beef is in the amount we are spending. Why do we need to spend so much when roads and bridges and dams are faltering. When the economy is in shambles. There was a empire called the Soviet Union who put all there money in military and not in infrustructure or the people and we all know where they are now.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by xmotex
 


"Either you create your future, or you become the victim of a future someone creates for you."

[edit on 6-4-2008 by West Coast]


I admire your dedication to our country as always, but let us not confuse ourselves with the Creator. We do not Create Future. Only He does.

Becoming the 'victim' of a future that he creates is never a bad thing! Trust me, this comes from someone who takes preemptive action very seriously. I'm simply saying that we can't know all outcomes, and we should err on the side of caution when it comes to interfering in the lives of others.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Blah-blah-blah...Another Bush apologist...

Hilarious and childish eh? Have you looked at the housing or job situations here bud? How about the cost of driving across town or food? Your DENIAL of what is going is what is hilarious. Our country is going to sh** and folks like you who act like everything's hunky dorey are not helping, you're part of the problem. Wake up.


I'd like to thank the original poster for completely dismissing my post and rebuttal to almost all of his points like a child. I think that not only does it take away from what ATS is supposed to be, that is, a collaborative community, but it makes him look foolish and arrogant.

So sad that he has to resort to silly mud slinging instead of debate.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by Johnmike]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar
 


I'm sorry, but the topic is "Bush Arms Buildup Rivals Hitler and Stalin," not, "Scold people for posting something that conflicts with your personal religion."

I can't believe I read through 3 pages hoping to join in on an interesting discussion, only to find that once again I've walked in just as somebody brought superstition into the equation... pooey!


The truth is, we DO have a responsibility to build our own future. God didn't pop out of the sky to end the Nazi regime, it was the brave sacrifices of the Allied soldiers. God didn't end the Civil War or free the slaves, it was the soldiers. God didn't win us our Independence and build our nation, that was done by the patriot warriors and our founding fathers.

God didn't give us automobiles, textiles, electrical grids, airplanes, and technology. We built it. Human hands controlled by human minds were the instruments that gave us the world we have today.

We built our present through innovation. We kept that innovation secure with military strength, this can be said for all nations. Human ingenuity and the will to defend our values and freedom will always determine our future, not "Magic Man in de Sky."

It really is up to us to build our future, which means that it's up to us to stop wasting our money destroying it and start spending our money to defend it.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This is simply because the world contains more people now and one must build faster in order to kill more efficiently. Also note that there is a war going on overseas, usually this is known to boost production. Also know that it took Hitler a couple of years to build his war machine and they still werent even ready to fight a war. The whole blitzkreig was a stroke of luck as only one in four panzers were actually able to fire ammunition during the attack on france.

Military buildup? Open your eyes, the US has had a pretty beefed up military for some time now.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
From Dwight Eisenhower:




A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, 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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.



Dwight Eisenhower knew what was happening and was giving us warning to protect our liberties at home. "The disastrous rise of misplaced power"
I think that sums up our current situation succinctly.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
and another from Eisenhower:




The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only ineffective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing isinalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations...

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealthand the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honest.

It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?



War is good business. Does it need be the organizing principle for our society. I think we are ready for a better wayl



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


When you start your post calling the OP "hillarious and child like", you probably won't get a good mature response. I don't think you should be crying foul when you were the first to sling insults.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 


And the future I want to create is one where this country returns to the principles it was founded on.

If you want an Empire, go someplace where the people want one.

Because this ain't it


[edit on 4/7/08 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   
this reminds me of my country, when I was a youth I was sold into bondage forced to sleep with my family and mostly ate rice and beans untill most of my family died.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Johnmike
 


Blah-blah-blah...Another Bush apologist...

Hilarious and childish eh? Have you looked at the housing or job situations here bud? How about the cost of driving across town or food? Your DENIAL of what is going is what is hilarious. Our country is going to sh** and folks like you who act like everything's hunky dorey are not helping, you're part of the problem. Wake up.


You know I don't like Bush either, but just because someone does not condemn someone TOTALLY does not mean that they're an apologist either. Johnmike, or whatever his name is, is right about America's aging military machines. And you are right about our infrastructure. The difference, by and large, is that it is not the responsibility of the Federal government to fix MOST infrastructure problems (and if Bush created an agency for just that function I'm sure you'd have a heart attack). And as someone else stated, that America is spending not for defense but to create an empire. WRONG! America is spending to MAINTAIN an empire. Empire is an incendiary word that can be debated, but American hegemony in the world is a very real thing. As an American, I hope it is something we can maintain because I think the world has always had a superpower. The way in which America carries out her goals will be altered from the direction that Bush has steered us I pray, though.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
They're all related to each other through either the Bauer/Rothschild family or Vlad "the impaler". Preparing for war ("building up arms") is natural for them. They're literally natural-born tyrants.

They were all financially-supported to kill innocent people, and rule over the people, who use the Bauer's/Rothschild's man-made money.

War is their business, and they loved their business (a.k.a. torturing strangers, and common folks in their own nation-states).



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Another take on the defense numbers being massaged here:

Domestic spending has actually grown faster than defense spending. Since 1990, federal outlays on domestic programs have increased 62 percent, nearly twice the 33 percent rise in defense and homeland security spending. The latter rose under President Bush, not only to respond to global terrorism, but also to make up for Clinton-era budget cuts that had left America’s military in danger of becoming a “hollow force.”
Defense spending is well below historical levels. At 4.0 percent of GDP, up from 3.0 percent when President Bush took office, current defense spending remains well below the 40-year average of 5.6 percent of GDP.

www.myheritage.org...

As much as I agree that the USA should not be the agressor in any foreign nation, let's keep the numbers real.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
You can cry all about the anti-American bias, but it is there and it exists.


You seem to confuse "anti-American" with anti-Governmental....

Seems to me that if he we're anti-American, he wouldn't give a crap about the state of it in the first place.


AB1



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by US Monitor
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I would like to see the international laws that ban DU rounds as well as the other aspects you are referring too.


What about the human law that may otherwise say, "hey this isn't something I WANt to do to another person!"

I guess you never entertained that thought eh?


AB1



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
How do people think this arms buildup will go under the next president?

I get the impression that all the main 3 candidates would increase it, even obama seems to want out of the war in iraq, but more into afghanistan/pakistan (I would guess because it's the mountain regions there are where the bad guys are said to hold out)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join