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.

 

Pentagon’s Christmas Present: Largest Military Budget Since World War II

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


But you're ignoring the other two examples.
We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq when the twin towers were attacked. Either time. Whether it was under Bill Clinton's watch or Bush's. I suppose we could just surrender and allow Al Qieda to walk all over us, give them what they want. We could wave the white flag.
Just let any nutjob with a bomb threaten us and we could give up at the drop of a hat.




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by itsawild1
 


Let me ask you something. If we left all the battlefields do you honestly believe that they (islamic jihadists) would stop trying to kill us? That we'd see no more 9/11's. No more railway bombings? No more marketplace bombings?

If al it took for wars to end was one side just "leaving" don't you think we'd have done that already?

I mean, seriously!


You don't seem to get it. The "Islamic Jihadists" are a construct, whose sole purpose is to justify endless war in far off places for control of resources. One thing I see often on these boards are the gung-ho armchair generals acting tough and talking about how they'd fight to protect their country. Well, what do you think the people in the countries you have invaded are doing? Leave them alone, let them live in whatever conditions they want to. Oh, I forgot, there are big corporations that want the resources those people are sitting on, so along comes a trumped up terrorist attack and... hey presto!... a reason to invade and stay. It's the oldest play in the book, very tired and worn out but seems to work every time in getting the mindless little flag wavers riled up enough to support unquestioningly whatever course of action ensues.
Of course, along the way, members of the government and corporate boards are making money hand over fist from the war, whilst those sent to fight are dying and being maimed, physically or mentally, for life. But hey, it's what they signed up for... right? Wrong! What they signed up for was to protect their country, NOT be sent to fight wars of aggression for corporate profit. No amount of brainwashing and propaganda is going to change the sad reality, just as no amount of money, from ever increasing "defence" budgets, is going to bring back those who died for profits or rebuild the broken lives on both sides.

So, yes, just leave and protect your own country, at it's borders, not thousands of miles away for a few balance sheet percentage points.

Another thing to consider in these hard times - ever wonder why the stock portfolios of the politicians are able to do so well, year in year out, whilst everyone else is having to make do with less? Simple, it's a rigged game, where they, as the rule makers, are in the position to make decisions that will swell their stock prices. At what price though?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Romekje
 


But you're ignoring the other two examples.
We weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq when the twin towers were attacked. Either time. Whether it was under Bill Clinton's watch or Bush's. I suppose we could just surrender and allow Al Qieda to walk all over us, give them what they want. We could wave the white flag.
Just let any nutjob with a bomb threaten us and we could give up at the drop of a hat.



To be honest.. if you still feel that 9/11 was Al Qaida i really don't understand why you registered on this website.

Have you read the 9/11 forums yet or are you just here to bash all anti-USA posts? Because your post history in the last few days do make it look like that.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


I am a proud American and will defend when I think it needs defending. I am a cynic but I don't support a government that conducted 9/11 because I don't think our government did it. If all you want on this site are people that bash America and only anti-American comments then maybe this isn't the place for me. One of the phrases here is "deny ignorance" yet when I provide another aspect to a debate, I'm labeled a troll among other things.
Areyou folks afraid of differing view points? Are you afraid that I may be right? Is the truth that scary for you?
Then this isn't a conspiracy website, it's just a place where one side is viewed and only one side is accepted.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Largest military budget ever and under the watch of TWO separate branches of government TOTALLY under the control of the Democrats.

Hmmmmm, whoever wrote this thread MUST HAVE BEEN A GENIUS!

Now that the Democrats are in power "War is Good"



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I'm definately not afraid of alternate viewpoints, but not on topics where proof is overwhelming into the "alternative" theory.

But to go back on topic, if i get it right you welcome complete social reform because of budget defecits while they keep upping their defense budget?

Comment in another thread fits nice here so i'll just quote myself:





Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by loner007 reply to post by Violater1
 
So instead of dealing with your social issues in which 99% of crime is related to you(sic) rather spend money on making the country look like the inside of a prison instead of spending money on social issues, well it seems to me like everyone else in america(sic) you got it backwards.
Exqueeze me but, what are you talking about?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)
What he is talking about is that if the USA would not spend these amounts of "money" on law enforcement, the false war on terror, and their general thirst for war and simply use what they NEED instead of what they WANT to control their own populace, that leftover budget could feed the entire world for years to come, or simply fix your own country overnight (as an example ofc)




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


You're working under the assumption that the war on terror is false. Okay, I get that. Anything stemming from "that" premise would then be biased against anything towards that. I working under the assumption that the war on terror is real. That Al Qeida is real. That they want to cause us harm. That regardless of what we do, they will continue to strike at us.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I've alluded to that fact in the posts I've made earlier.

Thanks for not being as subtle as I.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I am SICK AND TIRED of the those that ATTEMPT to defend the Democrats or attack the Republicans when they BOTH do pretty much the same damn things.

At least the Tea Party has attempted to reign in the tyrants in the rethug party.

What does the Dems come to the table with? Oh the Coffee party which calls for more control of people, more taxes, more military, more government, and my personal favorite..............

The sexual assault of people boarding planes and furtherance of the PATRIOT ACT. HYPOCRITES!




posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by abecedarian
 


I am SICK AND TIRED of the those that ATTEMPT to defend the Democrats or attack the Republicans when they BOTH do pretty much the same damn things.

At least the Tea Party has attempted to reign in the tyrants in the rethug party.

What does the Dems come to the table with? Oh the Coffee party which calls for more control of people, more taxes, more military, more government, and my personal favorite..............

The sexual assault of people boarding planes and furtherance of the PATRIOT ACT. HYPOCRITES!



Tea suggests a subtle, relaxed approach where one sits at the table and sips and reflects.
Coffee suggests headstrong, get it done, balls up and out. I've yet to see a tea drinker load up a 54oz cup.

Oh, you were saying?



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Not so subtle..............



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by abecedarian
 


Not so subtle..............


But I think you get the point-
tea party is trying to go with the flow, double filters and pure water...
coffee is hard pressed, dump it in, espresso, whipped and complain about the latte.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
It took China 90 days to build a new Type 071 ship.
It only took China 12 months to get their own GPS/COM Satellite Constellation around Earth.


Even if we gave DOD $2 Trillion, they couldn't accomplish the hardware build rate China is gettin' done.

Even Argentina is building nuclear powered subs. Argentina....what the heck do they need nuclear powered subs for?

Brazil secretly making nuclear bombs.....India deciding to buy Russian PAK-FA stealth fighters instead of our planes...plus Russia is building 18 new nuclear power plants across India....

This War will end all Wars.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Well, we have to have a study, owned by a company of the husband of Barbera Boxer or something.

We have to have a study done by the EPA, by the family of a member of government.

We have to do this, that, or the other thing.

Do you not know how things are done around here? That is big government and big corporations controlled by the elites of the government.

Nothing gets done without the okay of DER FUHRER of the APPARATCIK!



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
There is a middle ground. It just suits people to frame the argument in terms of 2 extreme and incorrect propositions.

Variously you hear either:

"There is no threat, its all a sham"

or

"OMG, if we don't spend a trillion dollars on weapons then terrorists will overrun america".

Neither proposition is accurate. There is a threat. There are islamic terror organisations out there with the intent to oppose western civilisation. They need opposing. However, they do not have the capability to destroy the USA. They have the power to inflict isolated acts of violence. This terrorises a populace only if people choose to be terrorised.

Most of the 'war on terror' rhetoric should really be considered giving aid and succour to the enemy since its assisting them in terrorising the populace. The real terror threat is overblown by politicians and their corporate paymasters as an excuse to fund weapon programs that are no use against the real threat but keep the big corps in gravy.

You don't need such a massive budget to protect against terrorism. You do need it to be an empire. Thats the question that needs to be answered. Is that what americans want to be? Its not what the country was founded to be and its arguably not necessary for the security of the country.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
There IS a complete breakdown of how the 725b is calculated but that's probably just propaganda to save face. How does the US govt keep justifying this to the people? Here in NL the populace totally freaked when our royal prince spent a few tax euro's too much (below 100K) on a private trip/vacation. We're talking billions here and it's not the first time this happens.

In my opinion the US got themselves into a vicious circle of budget cuts, and then defense budget boosts to cope with the rising unrest in the nation.

It makes me wonder when people in the US will actually have had enough.
When the television starts showing actual news and reports about current events again instead of "Supermodels dancing on ice", that day might actually come sometime.


No one listened to the warning we were given by pres. Eisenhower.

edit on 26-12-2010 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2010 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)


If no one listened to his speech then why is his speech which is decades old on the internet for everyone to see? And people keep mentioning it all the time.

I think they listened, but they just didn't want to bother doing anything. And most of us who are around today weren't even old enough to have listened to his speech in the first place.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer



Things like mobile watchtowers and fusion centres you mean?


That's more government than military. Ask any common military folk and they'd probably agree with most everything on this site!
The government can plan all they want, they can play their games all they want. But anything THAT draconian would have to involve the bread and butter military folks and THEY would not go along with that.

Again, just my two cents.


Assuming they don't have our military over seas and bring in foreign UN troops from god knows where who could give two rats asses and a three quarters turd about any American or our constitution...This has been discussed before as a possibility if the scenario were to go down. But if the US troops were here you would be right for the most part however, they did confiscate guns from people during Katrina with military force so obviously the "bread and butter" military folks don't mind a little draconian...



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   


In addition, Pentagon spending has increased by 100 percent since 1998 and “the Obama budget plans to spend more on the Pentagon over eight years than any administration has since World War II.” [2]


source... original link in op.

Yeah... when does he have to return the Nobel Peace Prize?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
that prize was a joke and everybody knows it.

It totally destroyed the credibility of the institution that hands out the nobel prizes.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Well, the military spending has NOTHING to do with foreign problems, it has to do with DOMESTIC problems.

We all remember his TRUE relevant exclamation.

By the way, in his OWN WORDS-



By the way, who was the LAST leader to call for this?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join