The War Machine. Nickel and Diming the U.S. to Death

I'm sure that some people are going to disagree with me on some of the things I say here, which is fine, but please, keep it civil.

First, I’d like to present to you a recent quote from Rep. Ron Paul that really got me thinking.

"It doesn't seem like countries wake up to the moral arguments or the legal arguments, but eventually the law of economics wakes everybody up, because countries can't afford it. This is more or less what happened to the Soviet system. We didn't have to fight them.”

Source With the bolded text as my emphasis.

Here’s the deal. Our taxes are supposed to go to defense spending, yet what are we defending? It seems to me, and perhaps I am mistaken, that we are pouring money into offensive spending, and for what purpose?

Yes, I know, spreading democracy…disposing of tyrants…preemptively disrupting terrorists plans, promoting freedom etc…

However, we simply cannot afford it anymore and that is a fact, not mere speculation.

Here are some charts for your viewing pleasure:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79c470ce4c40.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/299fea0337aa.jpg[/atsimg]

Okay, so I'm sure you are wondering "Where is the conspiracy in all this?" Right? Well here you go.

There are some theories floating around my seldom used mind regarding our continued military endeavors. Mostly I’m starting to wonder if some group or groups are intentionally and indirectly antagonizing the United States in order to get us to spend our way more into debt. Perhaps some sort of national level agent provocateur?

I mean really? Almost 50 % percent of government spending is going towards defense?

1. A competing superpower, such as Russia or China, by either influencing US policy and / or intelligence, funding of our “enemies” or instigating the types of civil unrest we’ve been seeing lately.

2. People or groups within the U.S. who wish its demise by influencing US policy and / or intelligence, funding of our “enemies” or instigating the types of civil unrest we’ve been seeing lately.

3. The Arab League; And I may be completely off the mark with these dudes, so if someone can correct me if needed, then by all means please do so.
Here is the stated goal from the Arab Leagues Website:

Arab League, informal name of the League of Arab States, a voluntary association of independent countries whose peoples are mainly Arabic speaking. Its stated purposes are to strengthen ties among the member states, coordinate their policies, and promote their common interests.

I know that this group is kind of coming out of left field, but their recent actions made me a bit suspicious and here's why.

The initial support "needed" and obtained from the Arab League in enforcing a no fly zone, which was said was an imperative factor needed to get the U.S. involved. Here is an article dated March 16th:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a “sea change” in international opinion toward favoring the action. “That has changed the thinking of a lot of people,” Clinton said in an interview with CBS News, taped in Cairo. “As we consult in New York on the UN resolution” to pursue a no-fly zone “there is a much greater openness than there was a week ago.”

Source

Yet, a few days later, “Arab League condemns broad Western bombing campaign in Libya”:

Moussa’s declaration suggested that some of the 22 Arab League members were taken aback by what they have seen and wanted to modify their approval lest they be perceived as accepting outright Western military intervention in Libya.

Source

Odd? I think so. As if they were unawar of what a no fly zone entailed. So now they are like, "Oh no you didn't!

(Note - I'm having trouble finding any references to them or statements made prior to and during Iraq/Afghanistan military actions, so any help would be awesome! :up

4. The NWO/Illuminati....Hey, I'm not a big believer in these two really, but if they were factual, I could see them trying to ruin the U.S., you know taking down the biggest first, then working on the rest. Then building everyone else back up tp their standards.

And lastly...

5. There is no conspiracy here really. Maybe fluoride or something, I dunno. But perhaps most Americans are just too lazy and / or apathetic to give a damn really. They just support what their parties do, or what the T.V. says is good, or what is socially acceptable in their circles.

Regardless, we have our own problems here at home that need to be fixed first, yet for some reason, which I'm totally unable to grasp, they are being placed behind the afterburners of our foreign policy.

I'd like to end with this:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795


I would appreciate any thoughts on this. Thanks for reading.

No commentary? Man, I need to learn how to embrace sensational headlines.

I'll chime in. Interesting points, I wonder what the threshold is, however, between war being good for business and it being a detriment.
I know business rakes in the bucks during war. Unemployment would decrease, productivity would increase.
But bringing in the soviet model provides a good example of "too much too fast".

I wish I could comment more, but'll have to troll and do some homework before siding one way or another.
Cheers.

reply to post by beezzer


Thank you for the comment Beezzer.

I honestly think that for war to be good for business, it would have to be, well, a real war. Where small business's and communities are affected instead of the usual big corporations.

I mean, the last time the United States declared war was in 1942. Our GDP shot up around those years as well.

Of course, we have had engagements authorized by congress, or approved by the U.N., however, all we are doing is paying, paying, paying and buying, buying, buying. All for what?

And yes, the comparison to Russia was what I was primarily tying to get at.

reply to post by Juston


GREAT compilation of info.

S&F&

reply to post by soficrow


Soficrow, thank you for your kind words. Means a lot. Glad that you enjoyed it.

reply to post by Juston


very interesting pie chart you have there -did you notice anything that is missing from it . take a look at your debt portion of it -debt interest and non military debt are combined into 1 section all of these shown equal 100% . what is missing is the military and it`s debt numbers ,where did they mysteriously disappear to .or do you all get and extra tax added on to you through your payroll tax or is it added at year end tax time .
the u.s debt is in the billions and all other nations own it -or in other wise they own your country which they bought up behind you the American peoples backs.with the open consent of your own governments grace by buying up your bonds on the pretense that they would make a profit off of all of you when the u.s . paid them back. this is not going to be a happening thing as the u.s. can barely pay the interest on what they owe and your own chart proves this to you.p.s they are not the only government in this world who are living on debt without having any money in the bank.every nation in this world is guilty of it ,- on all levels of government as what you are showing is what Washington owes to the world.
so where are the # for the other levels of government -city ,state .county and so on .they are not here either .
so who is raping the world of all of this money ? THE BANKS guilty as charged .
we can no longer afford their insane interest rates and our governments will do nothing to control them as they in the end own all of those promissory notes . FOR EVERYTHING.
note for Afghanistan -during their occupation by Russia the us funded backed and gave all kinds of weapons to the Afghan people to fight Russia , funny thing is they are all nato rounds which means that all of our soldiers over there are nothing more than carriers of free ammo to be used against us .it is amazing that the us government paid to have all of our troops killed today back then by their mindless mindset.
only a few thought s for you for now.

reply to post by picrat


Picrat, thank you for your contribution.

Yes, of course I am well aware of the actions of the CIA during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

And yes, numerous other countries are having dire financial issues as well, for whatever reasons, however, how many of them are committed to 2 1/2 wars?

reply to post by Juston


Very good points. Ideologies aside, the two greatest military errors over the past century were the U.S.S.R.'s Afghan war, and Nazi controlled Germany getting involved on too many fronts simultaneously. These errors seem to be playing themselves out again with a single new nation at the helm.

The U.S. bankrupted the U.S.S.R. by covertly funding, arming, and training the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" (today known as Al-Qaeda). As we, today, spend millions for every ten thousand they invest; it seems that the lessons gleaned from recent history have already been forgotten. Then there's the second aspect.

A military force weakens as it becomes spread too thinly among many fronts. With enlistment dwindling, and many actions/wars already taking place... adding new fronts (such as Libya) does nothing to help us finish what's already been started.

Mere weeks ago there were more notions of government shutdowns unless the U.S. debt cap was raised yet again, and there are already serious doubts as to whether the U.S. can even maintain interest payments on the debt already owed. When history is taken into account, notions of "The War Machine. Nickel and Diming the U.S. to Death" really don't seem far fetched.

redmage,

Thanks for your response. I was going to include the mass distribution of U.S. Forces as well, but decided against it, even though it is a great point and does show an additional facet to our military spending. I honestly think that Joe Taxpayer really has no idea how much it costs to sustain a military member, and sometimes their families, at an overseas AOR.