Getting involved in Libya

[The Storyteller]

No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.

Money spent to build a tank goes back into a local economy somewhere, at least a good portion of it does. And tanks don't sit idle. Every tank needs a tank crew, and every tank crew trains extensively. Tanks also are imbeded in infantry units to protect the tanks, so you pay those troops too.

There is no question there are more useful things for the government to spend its money on, but until you can convince your fellow Republicans of that it will never happen. In the meantime, folks who otherwise wouldn't have a job, do.

[freein05]

No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sitIs idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.

Guns or butter...

I will drink to that statement.

[jp1]

In any case, our friends across the pond need fear little as long as we continue our wasteful jobs program. They can continue to maintain their piddly, inadequate militaries, and we can continue to put people to work with ours. Win win.

You keep mentioning how the Europeans can avoid spending money on a "real" military (read in my mind "a bloated, overly expensive military") because the US spends a lot of money on our military. Yet, you've never pointed out who it is that the Europeans need fear attacking them.

Maybe they don't spend such absurd amounts on military as we do because they JUST DON'T SEE THE NEED. Once and for all, WHO is going to be attacking all these countries??? Without attackers there's really no need for bloated wasteful military.

[Gregg]

No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.

Guns or butter...

I agree, but do find it rather ironic that guns have become the new butter.

[Gregg]

I guess I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what country has a military that could likely launch a successful attack on US soil given that unless it was Mexico or Canada they'd need to be able to do so from an awful long way away.

Depends on how you define success. While the size of the US military and the geographic isolation of the country certainly diminishes the chances anyone will mount a blitzkrieg against us, there are those who feel that little skirmish in Sept. of 2001 had elements of a successful invasion. The problem might be looking at it through the eyes of the invaded rather than the invaders. We seem to just assume that conquest is the goal when subversion may be more accurate. Attacks in NY, London, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. were generally carried out by foreigners (invaders?) and their actions have lead to at least incremental changes in the behavior of the invaded (success?).

[jp1]

Depends on how you define success. While the size of the US military and the geographic isolation of the country certainly diminishes the chances anyone will mount a blitzkrieg against us, there are those who feel that little skirmish in Sept. of 2001 had elements of a successful invasion. The problem might be looking at it through the eyes of the invaded rather than the invaders. We seem to just assume that conquest is the goal when subversion may be more accurate. Attacks in NY, London, Madrid, Mumbai, etc. were generally carried out by foreigners (invaders?) and their actions have lead to at least incremental changes in the behavior of the invaded (success?).

I agree that these qualify as invasions, at least on some level. And I would expect that future "invasions" of this type are the most likely. However, invasions of this type are not fended off well by a traditional military. Posting an aircraft carrier in NY Harbor or a battallion of soldiers in the plaza at the world trade center would not likely have been successful at preventing the attack.

[ApatheticNoMore]

No. Every dollar spent on a tank that merely sits idle is still a dollar not being spent on something that adds ongoing value, like a road, or a bridge, or a school. It's wasteful of our society's capital.

Guns or butter...

Yes wasteful of capital, but not just a waste of capital, a waste of natural capital. How many NON-RENEWABLE resources are used for the warfare state? Why? Toward what end? Shouldn't we spending this on solar arrays or wind farms something? Preparing for the future? Of course it does reduce the earth's population I suppose (by you know, killing people).

Oh, absolutely. That would be my preference. But you will never convince the right of that. I figure if the government is going to waste money on this anyway, at least put some people to work. Not only does it create jobs in the technology sector, but gives kids in poor areas a job and a way out of poverty.

Blah, is work an end it itself? If there's not enough productive (as opposed to building unused tanks) work to do, wouldn't most people be happier spreading the work around and having more leisure time? But the current economic system can't accommodate that, and noone even thinks to make it so it can.

Maybe even the person involved in manufacturing a tank would like to be doing socially worthwhile work. But instead they're building a tank, that if it is used at all, will be used to kill. They might not want to be doing this, may even sleep uneasy at night knowing this is what 40 hours of their life goes to every week: the war machine. But they need a fricken job and this was all that was available. Why? Because it's what the government chose to spend money on! Not just a waste of capital, A WASTE OF HUMAN BEINGS LIVES, building this stuff.

Meanwhile after all our money is spent on this nonsense (and banksters, of course banksters), there's always austerity to follow, because sorry no money left for anything else. Sure if you really believe deficits are no problem whatsoever then it's not a choice between guns and butter. But um, governments around the world are sure as heck not acting like they believe that!! Austerity as far as the eye can see. There's too many reasons not to believe that deficits are no problem, our national debt was funded partly by China, now it's increasingly funded by money creation, the whole thing is nuts.

And the only time the military is destructive is when we are actually at war, like right now. And whether a particular war is truly destructive or constructive in the long term is often a matter of debate.

I think common sense dictates that we should have an anti-war bias given the tremendous cost of wars in lives and suffering. That once in a while a war might still be worth it, yes fine. But we should be very very skeptical. The problem is the people too easily have a pro-war bias. They're easily convinced wars are justified and righteous and this is why war continues indefinitely.

[Zigzagman]

During the speech....

I put my right hand over my heart.....I saluted with my left hand
and I made a cross with my feet.....that is not easy to do!!

Peace

[Gregg]

I agree that these qualify as invasions, at least on some level. And I would expect that future "invasions" of this type are the most likely. However, invasions of this type are not fended off well by a traditional military. Posting an aircraft carrier in NY Harbor or a battallion of soldiers in the plaza at the world trade center would not likely have been successful at preventing the attack.

Exactly correct jp1. In my way of thinking these small to medium scale (in relation to an actual war) attacks were quite successful. They managed to completely circumvent forces that were far superior in every traditional way. Anyone who flies knows they managed to modify the behavior of entire nations. I think most of us realize there is no way to stop every attack if some group is determined to pull one off. The question really becomes when are the people who get invaded going to shift their strategy and look at the bigger picture. While certainly not every terrorist is Muslim I think we, as in the US, could significantly reduce the size of the target on our back by ending our occupation of Muslim lands. The less reason you give for someone to hate you the less likely they are to lash out. The Taliban, et.al, survive on hate. Take most of that away and they may disappear as well.

[Gregg]

During the speech....

I put my right hand over my heart.....I saluted with my left hand
and I made a cross with my feet.....that is not easy to do!!

Peace

Yea Zig, leave it up to you wacky libs to play twister during the speech!