Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
Complete sophistry. It's not about whether military spending has benefits (it obviously does, and it'd better for the expense), it's about opportunity costs. It's about whether those benefits warrant spending such staggering amounts, as much as if not more than the rest of the world combined, and if that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Given all the competing outlets for those dollars: education, health care, infrastructure, direct research into energy, production and medicine and targeted stimulus (hey why not; military spending is an inefficient form of stimulus in its own right), and the relatively peaceful state of the world, there is an exceedingly onerous burden of proof upon anyone who would assert that continuing to spend as much as the States does on its armed forces is the best use of that revenue overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
The US military is, at best, five-ten years ahead of our nearest competitors.
Wow, you sir, are delusional. Tell me which competitors you're referring to please, I'm interested. China?

Quote:
In war, more than anything else, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
You should take that logic to legislating food as a means to prevent obesity-related conditions from clogging up your waiting lists.

Quote:
You're arguing that because what we're doing is working, we should stop doing it.
Quite amusing: Would the US declare war on Iran if it achieved nuclear weapon status? Dun think so. The threats to the US (and indeed, many other countries) in today's world are vastly different than WW1, WW2 and Cold War era challenges.

Quote:
The lesson there is not that meeting an unconventional force with a conventional force results in defeat for the conventional force - it doesn't, not by a long shot. The unconventional force tends to get slaughtered wherever they meet, and in Afghanistan (and Iraq) in a ratio something like fifteen of them for every one of us (this includes IED and indirect fire attacks). We don't need troop numbers to meet large enemy armies (though those exist, China has the possibility of collapsing in the wrong way), we need troop numbers for presence and containment.
Did I argue this? I said the military budget was bloated and that increasing it as it is is pure demagoguery... They would certainly not be increasing the budget purely for troop presence/containment given that you only have one war left to man and that one's also winding down.

The thing is, regardless of how you feel about the current budget, we have one canidate who is trying to meet the military budgetary needs according to what the joint chiefs told him we need and the other trying to overspend on military to buy things the military doesn't want, while describing himself as fiscally responsible with his magic budget that will give everyone what they want while reducing both taxes and the deficit. Reaganomics may have been voodoo economics but Romneynomics is fantasy economics.

I just wish anything by Joss Whedon was on every channel.

The YouTube comments to go with the Joss Whedon video are expectedly atrocious, though I am somewhat surprised to see far more Republican-focused commentary than Joss Whedon-fan commentary.

Anyway, this is my favorite comment so far:

Quote:
This is so stupid I have to laugh. The liberal media will do anything including making up fictitious zombie stories to scare people into voting for Obama. Everything here is bias bullshit. I hope Romney wins, because America needs a president that doesn't lie, cheat and steal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
The YouTube comments to go with the Joss Whedon video are expectedly atrocious, though I am somewhat surprised to see far more Republican-focused commentary than Joss Whedon-fan commentary.
Why's that?





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us