Dell-Joey-Riot

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

more is better? are you seriously advocating spending more on defense than we do now?

if we were to have a smaller military, not going into iraq would be a reality. but hey, we have all these soldiers, sailors and airmen, so we use them.

have you actually looked to see just how much we spend each year on defense? what portion of the federal budget goes to defense? how our spending matches up to the next nine largest militaries? most of the next nine are our allies. two of the nine are china and russia. russia's spending is equal to france. or to england.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

i've posted the above before.


note this graph:

Attachment 2072


that's our spending compared to the next four largest militaries.

When I said more is better up to a point, that was just a principle. I did not mean that in reference to today's level not being enough. I would let the experts tackle that one.

But I am serious about the 60 years and counting in Korea. What's the end-strategy for that deployment?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

When I said more is better up to a point, that was just a principle. I did not mean that in reference to today's level not being enough. I would let the experts tackle that one.

But I am serious about the 60 years and counting in Korea. What's the end-strategy for that deployment?

there isn't one. just like us still have a military presence in germany and japan. we have a fleet based in bahrain. why? because we can i guess. and we're paying thru the nose for all of it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Me and about 60 million other Romney supporters will stick around and make sure this president gets his attitude adjustment. If he wants to govern and needs any help from us, we have to be made happy too.

So he has some interesting decisions to make. There is no mandate with a 50-50 split in the electorate.

i thought of that comment when i was reading an article on slate about close elections. this tidbit caught my eye, and is a good summation about a lack of a landslide-and why.

oh, and btw, anyone here realize that the kennedy election was a squeaker? he barely beat nixon. just like truman over dewey. forgotten history i guess.


anyway:

But the Gilded Age has at least one lesson to offer about what our repeated run of close elections might mean. Conventional wisdom suggests that close elections reflect a divided electorate: red/blue, liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat. The Gilded Age suggests that close elections may in fact be a sign that nobody, on either side, is thinking big.