Full Version: Is America worth fighting for?
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 27 2007, 01:54 PM) 
In 1944, the United States had almost 12 million men under arms, out of a population of 131 million, i.e, nearly 10% of the population. Today, we have 1.4 million out of a population of over 300 million. Somehow, I don't think we've come anywhere near the limit of our capacity.
Economically, today we spend 3.8% of our GDP on defense. That's all of our defense spending. In 1960, it was 9.3%, and we weren't even engaged in combat. During WW2, it was in the neighborhood of 40%.
Economically, today we spend 3.8% of our GDP on defense. That's all of our defense spending. In 1960, it was 9.3%, and we weren't even engaged in combat. During WW2, it was in the neighborhood of 40%.
Our military spending is more like 4 - 5% GDP. While much more of our GDP was diverted towards the military during the inter-war and Vietnam periods it bears mentioning that our annual GDP is several billion dollars more today. Not to mention, some military spending isn't accounted for in GDP figures. I hate to use Wiki but heck, it's sourced.
QUOTE(Military Budget of the United States)
Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and has risen steadily. Discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays. Therefore, comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account.
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (through supplementary spending bills), so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above. In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher.
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (through supplementary spending bills), so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above. In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher.
As far as manpower comparisons go, if there is a shortage of young healthy bodies it is because those in power don't believe there is a national security threat for the U.S. to confront in this war. Manpower shortage wasn't a problem during the inter-war and Vietnam (until the end) periods because you didn't have a choice about shared risk. There is no government-backed policy enforcing shared risk and shared sacrifice in terms of blood and Treasure when it comes to Iraq.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Jun 27 2007, 03:10 PM)
Our military spending is more like 4 - 5% GDP. While much more of our GDP was diverted towards the military during the inter-war and Vietnam periods it bears mentioning that our annual GDP is several billion dollars more today.
Actually, 8+ trillion more, in FY 2000 dollars. Table 648. Gross Domestic Product in Current and Real (2000) Dollars: 1960 to 2005QUOTE
Not to mention, some military spending isn't accounted for in GDP figures. I hate to use Wiki but heck, it's sourced.
Not necessarily, as you assume that I was using DoD Annual budget request numbers. Pursuant to this report from the Census Bureau, 455 billion in outlays for 2004. Doesn't matter how the money was authorized to be spent, anything spent goes under Outlays. That includes almost $4,000,000,000 on family housing, 18 B on our nuclear arsenal, and untold billions ( I got that number from the same place as you got your "black programs" expenditures QUOTE
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (through supplementary spending bills), so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above. In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher.
)on healthcare and education for dependents, as well as education for the troopies themselves. But hey, let's go with the top end of your WAG, 5%. Still a whole lot less than 1960 or 1944! Therefore, my point (underlying the Axiom in question) stands.Of course, the percentage of Iraq as a function of GDP is pretty easy to examine, as we are already using the supplemental numbers for that.
QUOTE
There is no government-backed policy enforcing shared risk and shared sacrifice in terms of blood and Treasure when it comes to Iraq.
Actually, there is a policy of enforced shared sacrifice in terms of Treasure, if anything, the rich are sacrificing more than the poor. 
BTW, "enforcing shared risk...in terms of blood" would mean more anti-American liberals in the line of fire. 
Undoubtedly, there are some downsides to that result, but they aren't immediately apparent. 
But hey, if you're advocating a return to the draft... 
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 27 2007, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE(fbwc)
It is not up to you to judge that, nor is it up to anyone else.
Why isn't it up to me, or anyone else?Because your judgment is irrelevent. Who are you to judge? Who is anyone to judge? It is up to the individual or group to judge whether or not they think America is worth fighting for. You cannot get inside their heads, and tell us what they are thinking. You can tell us what you think they are thinking, but more than likely, you will be only guessing.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 27 2007, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE
I am not aware of any American who doesn't think America is worth fighting for.
John Walker Lindh aka Jonny Taliban aka The American TalibanAdam Yahiye Gadahn aka Azzam the American
Ward Churchill - "When I started out it was 'U.S. out of Vietnam,'" he declared in an August 2004 speech, "and then that was changed and it became 'U.S. out of Indochina,' and then it became 'U.S. out of Southern Africa,' and it was 'U.S. out of the Caribbean and Central America,' and then it became 'U.S. out of the Persian Gulf.' I agreed with every one of those, but ultimately there's only one way that any of them will be possible and that is: US out of North America, U.S. off the planet, and take Canada with you when you go!"
Susan Rosenberg
Stanley Cohen - Cohen, a regular on the mosque speaking circuit, represents cop killers, Jew-haters and terrorist organizations, so it is no less than chillingly when he pronounces, "Look, if I don't support the politics of political clients, I don't take the case." Joel L. Blumenfeld, a Supreme Court Justice in New York who supervised Cohen when both worked at the Legal Aid Society in the Bronx, once quipped, "If this were Pearl Harbor, he would be representing the Japanese."
Lynne Stewart
Perhaps you should do something about your lack of awareness.
Well, you may have scored some "gotcha" points with that last line, but I was aware of those people, and apparently worded my comments poorly.
Most Americans think America is worth fighting for, and portraying people who disagree with your methods as not thinking she is worth fighting for is not a fair tactic, and does nothing for your argument. Is that better? I certainly think America is worth fighting for, and I think fighting for America means fighting to see that America operates by the values upon which she was built, thus keeping her place in history as the greatest nation in the world, and not demeaning her by destroying Constitutional freedoms; invading nations who pose no real threat; torturing people indiscriminately; hiring private contractors who do not operate under the international rules of warfare; the list goes on and on.
Those who others portray as not thinking America is worth fighting for are often the very people who are most willing to risk their lives and their selves in order to fight for a nation that doesn't turn into something else, due to those who pretend to be most willing to fight for her. It's easy to say you are a patriot, and someone else is not. And we all know for whom that is the last refuge.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Jun 27 2007, 04:10 PM)
As far as manpower comparisons go, if there is a shortage of young healthy bodies it is because those in power don't believe there is a national security threat for the U.S. to confront in this war. Manpower shortage wasn't a problem during the inter-war and Vietnam (until the end) periods because you didn't have a choice about shared risk. There is no government-backed policy enforcing shared risk and shared sacrifice in terms of blood and Treasure when it comes to Iraq.
Shared by whom? The lawmakers who supported this invasion have all means of keeping friends and family from service as illustrated during Vietnam. I must assume you mean there is nothing that forces the populace at large to participate in whatever war their elected representatives have decided to prosecute.
I would point out that if there were indeed a 'shared risk measure' (I'll just say 'draft') , then a significantly greater number of people who are opposed to such war would take significantly more measures to put an end to it... I should say, "Those who aren't scrambling to use their influence to keep themselves and their family members out of harm's way while still supporting such a war.
There are plenty of gung-ho folks in America who would quickly change their minds if they or their children were forced to serve.
I'm personally amazed that the level of acceptance for this current occupation is as low as it is seeing as how there is no draft.
I gather that you are correct, of course. I certainly agree that 'those in the know' see no real threat from the nations we occupy.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 27 2007, 07:11 PM)
Therefore, my point (underlying the Axiom in question) stands.
Which axiom/question? There are several. I'm not saying our % GDP spending is not low, just saying that the % is misleading. If we were under funding our troops one party would grab this and make political hay out of it. Granted there are logistical problems in terms of arming up our vehicles so our servicemembers don't die in the line of duty trying to save the people that want to kill them, but that's more of a domestic manufacturing shortfall. You couldn't argue for a higher GDP percentage without a corresponding increase in service personnel. As for the rich paying more than the rest of us, that may be true for now. They've received incredible tax breaks for about a decade, have Republicans to thank for fighting the estate tax which was originally passed to help pay for WWI, and the tax disparity is shrinking. Some team spirit.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jun 27 2007, 07:11 PM)
Actually, there is a policy of enforced shared sacrifice in terms of Treasure, if anything, the rich are sacrificing more than the poor. BTW, "enforcing shared risk... in terms of blood" would mean more anti-American liberals in the line of fire. Undoubtedly, there are some downsides to that result, but they aren't immediately apparent. But hey, if you're advocating a return to the draft...
I know you're joking but I can't laugh. Not even a chuckle. Of course liberals would get drafted and get injured and die. Gays, atheists, Muslims. Everything that doesn't fit the conservative's idea of a patriot. First I was against invading Iraq and then I said we needed to reinstate the draft if the "Global War on Terror" is a fight for Western civilization as GWB framed it. The fact that he didn't and the fact that you can joke about dead un-American liberals is proof that this fight for our civilization is anything but and the Islamic threat to the world is as much real as it is imagined, if not more so.
QUOTE(Hunter Rose @ Jun 27 2007, 11:38 PM)
I would point out that if there were indeed a 'shared risk measure' (I'll just say 'draft') , then a significantly greater number of people who are opposed to such war would take significantly more measures to put an end to it...
A nasty political backlash is a possibility following the draft but I think it's much too late to reinstate the draft now.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.