Ike Was Right
So says CBS curmudgeon Andy Rooney who highlights the former president's parting warning on the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
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.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'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.
Comments
According to their Constitution, they can't have a standing army. Am I wrong?
It's funny....this news is not new at all. In fact, it's why I'm a Neocon.
I would love to explain why these facts stated above are exactly why we need to be prepared militarily, especially today, but I'd only be accused of wearing goggles, being incredibly ignorant and morally depraved.
I guess I could summarize it simply with three words: Bosnia and Rwanda.
Iraq had/has nothing to do with it.
And please don't tell me there isn't in existence a gravy train of fatty excess flowing to munition makers and unnecessary largess.
Ammunition has a half-life. Either it gets replaced and the old ammunition is destroyed, or the ammunition is used for target practice. Either way, the price is the same for replacement. (And, it could probably be argued that destroying ammunition could cost more than using it up)
While I do agree that there is a lot of bloat, Andy Rooney is more of a comic and doesn't bother to think past #'s that seem outrageous.
"I guess I could summarize it simply with three words: Bosnia and Rwanda."
Do we really need $455 billion to solve Rwanda and Bosnia, two ass backwards thrid world countries? Rwanda could have been solved by the blue helmets, but there was no political will from Clinton or the other European countries.
The Bosnia war was a good example of our military might being used to stop something ugly. Three cheers.
But do we really need 156 countries with U.S. troops?
Do we really need 63 countries with U.S. military bases and troops?
Or more stats:
845,441 Number of structures (covering 30 million acres) controlled by the Dept. of Defense, the world’s largest landlord.
50.5% Proportion of the total 2002 U.S. discretionary budget devoted to military.
In addition, lets not forget that many of those weapons that third world countries use to kill each other are made in the USA:
Associated Press:
U.S. Sells the Most Weapons to Developing Nations
http://www.commondreams.org...
Inter Press Service:
U.S. Dominates Arms Sales to Third World
http://www.commondreams.org...
Inter Press Service:
Half of US Foreign Aid Devoted to Military
http://archive.bibalex.org/...
sorry to sound like a broken record...
...It is a dangerous world, no doubt but who has a big hand in making it so dangerous?
That Guy is right, IMV.
Trav, no we don't need anymore troops in Europe, except for perhaps eastern Europe for now. But our presence is definitely needed across the world.
Those "two ass backwards thrid world countries" still have people to protect.
Europe and to a smaller degree, the US is responsible for the creation of the Third World through centuries of Imperial Footstomping (I'm aware of our manipulation of these countries during the Cold War). Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are existing and emerging superpowers to do their part with the US to encourage peace in the world; Europe, India, China, Russia, Japan. Before we rag about how much we're spending, perhaps we should ask these superpowers why they're not spending more. Europe can't-they're socialist. Japan can't-constitution. Russia obvisouly can't. China? What a joke; they're exactly why a strong world presence is needed. India is still creating a viable infrastructure.
And let me remind you that during the 1950s and 1960s, the era of Middle Class wealth, we were spending even more proportionally.
Have a great wekend guys.
"Those "two ass backwards thrid world countries" still have people to protect."
My goodness, I want to hold your hand and sing kambala:
"Europe and to a smaller degree, the US is responsible for the creation of the Third World through centuries of Imperial Footstomping (I'm aware of our manipulation of these countries during the Cold War)."
"Before we rag about how much we're spending, perhaps we should ask these superpowers why they're not spending more."
Why does there have to be World Military Spending of $1 Trillion?
Reuters: http://www.commondreams.org...
I have been doing some research and updating info on a small part of Costa Rica history.
I completely rewrote this page on the three time president of Costa Rica, José Figueres Ferrer,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Costa Rica revolutionary Figueres was helped by the CIA to overthrow a government which would not concede defeat in elections (how much the CIA had to do with this, I dont know), and he led his country to prosperity.
Maybe this is one overthrow that was beneficial to the people as a whole?
...I get some indication that the CIA may have later tried to assinate him, as he supported Castro for a while, and got some communist awards, but I am not sure....
more later....
Russia, despite being an "ally" needs some watching, considering its recent history......
Again, we should ask the other supers,"What have you done for me lately" (sorry Janet Jackson, with the Star studded boob).
Have a great day.
GO ASU!!!!!!!!
Add Comment