The Cost of a Global Empire

Just when you think the U.S. government is beginning to make sense by withdrawing troops from Iraq, they make the terrible decision to shuttle 21,000 more troops into the Afghan calamity. At a cost of $3.2 billion per month, we will throw another $38 billion down a rat hole in a country that has no vital strategic importance to the United States.

Barack Obama is doing this to prove that he is a true statesman. The Soviet Union killed over 1 million Afghans, while driving another 5 million out of the country and left bankrupted and defeated after ten years. Young Americans will continue to die for who? for what? Our foreign policy during the last eight years can be summed up in one military term, SNAFU – Situation Normal All Fouled Up. These foreign interventions are a smoke screen for what is really going on in this country. When a government has unsolvable domestic problems, they try to distract the public by creating foreign conflicts. General Douglas MacArthur understood the danger.

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.

Economic Opportunity Cost

You can't say civilization don't advance... in every war they kill you in a new way.

--Will Rogers

Any doubt that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever should be removed after examining Obama’s 2010 budget just put forth. It calls for 26% more in spending on Defense than President Bush spent in 2006. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower on earth. Since 1990, the United States has depleted the U.S. Treasury of $7 trillion for spending on Defense. With no military on earth capable of challenging us why would there be a need to spend this much on the military?

Over this same time frame the U.S. spent $360 billion on science, space & technology and $52 billion on energy, a mere 6% of the spending on killing machines. Military expenditures benefit humanity in no way. If these trillions had been invested by the private sector or devoted to energy and scientific research, our economy might not be a hollowed out shell dependent on China and oil exporting countries. Nationalists argue that the Defense industry employs millions and benefits the country. These companies employ brilliant engineers and scientists who spend their days developing things that kill people more efficiently. If they had been employed developing electric cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, an efficient electric grid, infrastructure upgrades, or finding a cure for Alzheimer’s, would the United States be better off today?

The National Debt in 1990 was $3.2 trillion. Today, it is $11 trillion. This is a 343% increase in nineteen years. What benefit has $7 trillion of spending on Defense produced for the United States or the world? In 2001, spending on Defense was 17% of total governmental spending. In 2008, Defense, Homeland Security, and war spending accounted for 26% of government spending. In the meantime, major cities have had blackouts due to an overloaded electrical grid, our 156,000 structurally deficient bridges crumble, one hundred year old water pipes burst under our streets every day, and we send $500 billion per year to foreign countries for oil. The 19 terrorist hijackers who implanted their plan with knives spent less than $500,000 to pull off their 9/11 acts of terror. The United States has spent over $1 trillion in response, without capturing the mastermind of the attacks.

You would think we must be trying to keep up with our enemies by spending $765 billion per year on the Military. But one look at the following chart reveals that the United States is spending as much as the rest of the world combined. The two countries considered potential rivals, Russia and China, spent $192 billion combined in 2008. This is 27% of U.S. spending. From a foreign perspective, one must wonder why the U.S. is spending such vast quantities on our military. They can only conclude that it is for offensive intentions rather than defensive. The United States soil has not been attacked by a foreign power since December 7, 1941. Prior to that surprise attack, a foreign power hadn’t attacked the U.S. since the War of 1812. With this level of spending, our leaders feel compelled to interfere in the business of sovereign nations.

Other countries, such as China and Russia, feel they have no choice but to increase their expenditures on the military. On a percentage basis, they have more than doubled their expenditures in the last ten years, and still are a drop in the ocean compared to the American Empire spending. The fact is that the U.S., China and Russia all have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world – mutually assured destruction. The United States could realistically protect itself with the 18 ballistic missile nuclear submarines that we have in commission.

The U.S. has borrowed $609 billion from China, Japan and oil exporting countries to wage a war in Iraq that was based on false pretenses. None of the terrorist hijackers on 9/11 were Iraqis, they had no links to Al Qaeda, and they had no weapons of mass destruction. Historian Barbara Tuchman described “war as the unfolding of miscalculations.” In 2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld estimated the costs of the war in the range of $50 to $60 billion, a portion of which he believed would be financed by other countries. The United States invaded Iraq to secure the 115 billion barrels of oil reserves, pure and simple. We’ve traded the blood of young Americans for oil because we chose to not develop a cohesive logical energy policy in the last 30 years. Americans not in the military have sacrificed nothing in the last 7 years of war. We bought SUVs, McMansions, flat screen HDTVs, Blackberrys, iPods, and Rolexes while Americans died and the cost is passed to future generations.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

--Dwight D. Eisenhower

As we spend $765 billion per year on weapons, 37 million Americans live in poverty, with 46 million uninsured. There are 3 to 4 million people homeless in any given year. Military Veterans, who make up 13% of the population, account for 23% of the homeless. This is another example of government using Americans and then tossing them away like a piece of garbage. Now, with the recession deepening, tent cities of homeless are popping up across the nation. We pour billions into killing technology while American families are forced to live on the streets.

As the world spends $1.5 trillion per year on new methods of killing, millions die the old fashioned way.

• 13 million people per year die from starvation in the world.
• The FAO says that 854 million people worldwide are undernourished.
• The World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 982 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1 a day or less.
• For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years.
• Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--six million deaths.
• 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates).

What kind of a civilized society allocates 44% of the taxes taken from its people to war? Only 2.5% of your taxes go to science, energy, and environment. Only 2.2% of your taxes go to education and jobs. With a population of 304 million, the U.S. spends $59 billion ($194 per person) annually on education. Saudi Arabia, with a population of 28 million, spends $33 billion ($1,179 per person) on education. You produce the results that you would expect from your investments. A full 15% of our population doesn’t have a high school diploma (20% of African Americans and 43% of Latinos) and only 27% have a college degree. How do we expect to lead the world in technology and research with these figures?

For all the glory and accolades of dying for Dick Cheney, enlisted soldiers make between $15,000 and $30,000 per year. The military evidently does not prepare them well for the outside world as their unemployment rate is 11.2% versus the national rate of 8.1%. A country can be measured by how well it treats its veterans. Our leaders talk a good game, but their actions prove they don’t care about the human costs of war. They are busy planning their next move in their game of Risk.

Omar Bradley, the last five star General in the U.S. military, was known as the “soldier’s general” during World War II. He was portrayed by Karl Malden in the movie Patton as a thoughtful man who cared about his troops. He was one of the key architects of the Normandy invasion and led the 12^th Army Group consisting of 900,000 men until the end of the war. After the war, Bradley headed the Veterans Administration for two years. He is credited with doing much to improve its health care system and with helping veterans receive their educational benefits under the G.I. Bill of Rights. He ultimately rose to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.

--Omar Bradley

We need men like Omar Bradley and Dwight D. Eisenhower in control of our country today. These men knew the horrors of war and didn’t act like it was a game of chess. There are brilliant men in power today. There are no wise men with a conscience in power today. Only those without a conscience are able to gain power in today’s world. General Bradley understood that morality was ultimately more important than power and strength in the progress of a country. His words are those of someone who knew we had failed in our moral duty:

We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.

The overwhelming cost of maintaining a global empire eventually bankrupted Rome and Great Britain. Treasures were wasted, young men were needlessly sacrificed in the name of the flag, and the morality of leaders sank to unprecedented levels. The U.S. has advanced financially and technologically, but continues to decline morally. How far will we decline before the American people revolt?

I’m reminded of the movie Planet of the Apes. The apes are divided into a strict class system: the gorillas as police, military, and hunters; the orangutans as administrators, politicians and lawyers; and the chimpanzees as intellectuals and scientists. Humans, who cannot talk, are considered feral vermin and are hunted and used for scientific experimentation. The United States is now in the control of gorillas and orangutans. If we continue down the current path of financial and moral decay, allowing the Military Industrial Complex and corrupt leaders to push us into further world conflicts we will experience the shock and horror that George Taylor, played by Charlton Heston, displayed in the final scene of Planet of the Apes.

George Taylor: Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it.
[screaming]
You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

Comments

[James Quinn:]

Only 4 days to write this propaganda. Guns or butter? We can't have both, no matter how many dollars Uncle Ben prints.


On Mar 31 09:02 AM socrateazz wrote:

> This is interesting! My guess it took months to write this propaganda!
> I know you believe money spent on the millitary would go to better
> use. On the contrary I believe people act in what they see as their
> best interests. They will not try to take what they think they can
> not. They will take what they think they can take. They will punish
> where they think they can punish much like you propagandize where
> you think it will help. Part of the reason the US has been the country
> it is, is because few would challange the country directly. History
> has shown no country enduring without an adequate millitary. And
> the greater the country the more advanced is the need for millitary.
> I know you live in a world where you feel relatively safe within
> the country. That does not come cheap! In fact I think the US millitary
> is historically inexpensive compared to past nations. Propaganda
> wars like you have is good. One must see the other side for reallity
> to become clear. Quesion to concider: Has propaganda wars ( like
> the one you. have here) caused more death than conventional wars?
> You answer shows your point of view more than the reality! What started;
> The revolutionary war? The civil war? The spanish American war? WWI
> and WWII? If propaganda was not the main cause of any of those, Check
> again!

Mar 31 09:41 AM

[conceptwizard:]

Interesting article, very well resourced and articulated. I would agree that more money is spent on military spending than required for protecrtion. Donald Rumsfeld agrees he was missing 2.3 trillion!(youtube.com/watch?v=oj...) It is what we don't know about the money being spent that bothers me. The secret miliary spending eats up more than what the ACTUAL budget is. these numbers are not accurate in my opinion. For those people who think the miliary expenditures are necessary to keep us save, employ people and provide pensions and training, i would say this. Bring home the 700 or so military bases in the world and set them up in the states. That would give you 15 military bases per state. They would buy houses and spend money thus providing billions injected into the country. We should feel pretty safe with a base within a 500 mile radius across America.

Mar 31 11:11 AM

[James Quinn:]

It's naive to think that the term strategic interest doesn't mean OIL.

It's also naive to think that a bunch of 3rd world fanatics can launch a nuclear attack on the US. Not a chance. That is neo-con BS.

Spend the money on border control and port security.


On Mar 31 09:24 AM drbob66 wrote:

> "a country that has no vital strategic importance to the United States."
>
>
> Afghanistan? Maybe not. Neighboring Pakistan? I would say yes.<br/>My
> guess is that our government (and many others) are more than a little
> concerned about the possibility that religious fanatics might gain
> control of nuclear weapons (or even just nuclear material) in this
> dysfunctional neighboring country. Real possibility? Who knows? But
> it's certainly something to be concerned about, no?
>
> Obviously, we take on too much of the burden by ourselves...and should
> solicit much more help from the rest of the world in containing this
> threat. But it's naive to suggest that this region is of no "strategic
> importance."

Mar 31 11:26 AM

[robert99:]

Ahh, once again, some fool spouts the same tired argument in response to the common sense notion that a nation shouldn't spend half of it's economic output on wars - especially when it is spending about as much as the rest of the world combined. Yes, a strong military is a necessity, but when your allies include nearly all of the rest of the richest nations on earth, and you STILL spend more than all of them *combined* on 'defense,' something is out of whack. It was Dwight D. Eisenhower who oversaw the creation of the military industrial complex in the aftermath of the Korean War, but he did so with trepidation, as he understood the consequences that would occur if those who profit from war ever became powerful enough to alter our foreign policy in their favor. Unfortunately, we have completely ignored Eisenhower's warning, largely thanks to people like you who seem to believe that no amount of defense spending is too much. Obviously, we need to maintain a strong military, but covert imperialism (covert to Americans; overt to everyone else) is not the correct way to go about doing so. We should use defense funds for just that - defense - and nothing else. Imperialism works out well for a while for the superpower, but it ALWAYS ends badly if left unchecked. The author is not saying we should stick our heads in the sand; he is merely pointing out the absurdity of spending an order of magnitude more (of BORROWED money) on offensive wars while neglecting education and infrastructure here at home. Either we can stop acting like fools now out of choice, or we can do it later out of necessity - I choose the former.

www.youtube.com/watch?...




On Mar 31 09:02 AM socrateazz wrote:

> This is interesting! My guess it took months to write this propaganda!
> I know you believe money spent on the millitary would go to better
> use. On the contrary I believe people act in what they see as their
> best interests. They will not try to take what they think they can
> not. They will take what they think they can take. They will punish
> where they think they can punish much like you propagandize where
> you think it will help. Part of the reason the US has been the country
> it is, is because few would challange the country directly. History
> has shown no country enduring without an adequate millitary. And
> the greater the country the more advanced is the need for millitary.
> I know you live in a world where you feel relatively safe within
> the country. That does not come cheap! In fact I think the US
> millitary is historically inexpensive compared to past nations.
> Propaganda wars like you have is good. One must see the other side
> for reallity to become clear. Quesion to concider: Has propaganda
> wars ( like the one you. have here) caused more death than conventional
> wars? You answer shows your point of view more than the reality!
> What started; The revolutionary war? The civil war? The spanish
> American war? WWI and WWII? If propaganda was not the main cause
> of any of those, Check again!

Mar 31 11:48 AM

[azcaballer:]

Propaganda? What exactly are you spouting? You stated, "for reallity to become clear" (sic) you need to see the other side. What is the other side? Where would you prefer to live? I would prefer to live in a country at peace, I see where you could mean peace through strength, but come on. The US has taken that to an entirely new level where the military is the country and not a part of it.

You also mentioned "propaganda was not the main cause of any of those" This article points out that the United States spends half the worlds budget on military expenditure fuels a race with those that are antagonized by our insane defense spending levels.

Is it propaganda to point out (truthfully) that those resources wasted on defending the US from all powerful enemy (which judged by the sheer volume of spending must mean, the rest of the world and maybe even the people here in the US as well) could be used to other more positively beneficial means?

Pointing out that the US has its objectives backwards, and that murder should not be the business of the US, sadly that is becoming our number one export.


On Mar 31 09:02 AM socrateazz wrote:

> This is interesting! My guess it took months to write this propaganda!
> I know you believe money spent on the millitary would go to better
> use. On the contrary I believe people act in what they see as their
> best interests. They will not try to take what they think they can
> not. They will take what they think they can take. They will punish
> where they think they can punish much like you propagandize where
> you think it will help. Part of the reason the US has been the country
> it is, is because few would challange the country directly. History
> has shown no country enduring without an adequate millitary. And
> the greater the country the more advanced is the need for millitary.
> I know you live in a world where you feel relatively safe within
> the country. That does not come cheap! In fact I think the US
> millitary is historically inexpensive compared to past nations.
> Propaganda wars like you have is good. One must see the other side
> for reallity to become clear. Quesion to concider: Has propaganda
> wars ( like the one you. have here) caused more death than conventional
> wars? You answer shows your point of view more than the reality!
> What started; The revolutionary war? The civil war? The spanish
> American war? WWI and WWII? If propaganda was not the main cause
> of any of those, Check again!

Mar 31 12:29 PM

[PROXIMO:]

If the objective was to secure the 115 billion barrels of oil reserves, pure and simple, it seems like his dad could have made that happen easy enough a decade earlier,

Mar 31 01:30 PM

[bthomas:]

James,
I think one point that seems to be missed is that despite the massive spending for military purposes, the equipping of the boots on the ground seems piecemeal at best. Show me the money Pentagon.
Most people expect the best equipment available if ten times the money is spent. I do not find this article propagandist. Though I do believe the best deterrent to war is having (but not necessarily using) overwhelming force. I'm just not sure we are getting what we paid for. The military industrial complex helps the economy by providing well paying jobs. War pigs? P'lease!

Mar 31 01:36 PM

[waf76:]

I remember when a tshirt label that said made in the USA was the coolest thing but now all we make is bombs. Imperial hubris is what will be the downfall of our country. Lobbyists have hijacked our country. Our political system is corrupt. We're a morally bankrupt society who has the audacity to tell others how to live. Oh yeah we're financially bankrupt too. We have people in our government whose loyalties reside with another country. All under the guise of any catch phrase slogan, 'our way of life', 'support the troops', 'the only democracy in the middle east', etc, etc. etc.....the masses are asses and have no idea this is going on.

Mar 31 01:52 PM

[Ricard:]

Mr. Quinn

As usual, a great read. Your 'big picture' perspective is spot on - I can only wish that more people would at least be exposed to your point of view. Perhaps it's the natural life-span of nations aspiring to empire. Unfortunately, I think it's justifiable that all countries attempt to maximize power...it seems to be a tragic flaw in the realm of politics.

Regarding some of the finer details, my perspective is a bit different about military compensation - I was in the Air Force, and did not do a tour in Iraq. I agree with some of the commentators in that military pay is quite generous - the $15-30,000 you cite is DISPOSABLE income - housing, food, insurance, utilities, etc. are all provided for by Uncle Sam. That's also the pay of an average enlisted joe. Most enlisted troops do not have a college degree - officers who do have the degree receive far more in disposable income. The retirement system is second to none with a guarantee by, yep, Uncle Sam. A 20 year career of an average soldier will typically result in a pension that is inflation protected, and more than adequate to handle a mortgage - for officers, it is more than adequate to handle all living expenses, to include a nice vacation every few months, education for children, and a nice hobby. Health care is also free for retirees - something I'm sure any auto worker today can see is quite a valuable benefit. All of this at the age of 45.

As to the larger issues of homelessness and suicide rates of prior military, both seem to have been an outcrop of the Iraq War and the outrageous stop-loss provisions that accompanied it, and are unfortunately unduly biased towards the Army and Marine Corps. One reason I can give regarding the homelessness is that the military does provide for an unusually large amount of basic living necessities - the support structure is very strong, much stronger than for most government or private sector jobs. Once that umbrella is gone, most soldiers without a private support structure (parents, for example) find it difficult to cope, especially if they have a family of their own. Finally, we all know about the abysmal savings rate in the US - military members are no different; they're a fairly representative cross-section of the populace as a whole - take away the free housing, utilities, health care, etc, and most veterans find themselves more vulnerable than they originally anticipated.

Mar 31 02:04 PM

[drbob66:]

"It's also naive to think that a bunch of 3rd world fanatics can launch a nuclear attack on the US. Not a chance. That is neo-con BS."

Note that I included the possibility that our enemies obtain nuclear MATERIAL (not necessarily the weapons themselves). Is that impossible? Yes...according to YOU. But my point was that it is NOT impossible in the minds of our defense strategists. After 9/11, it seems that it would make sense to consider all possibilities. These "third world fanatics" have proven themselves capable of causing significant damage if they put their minds to it. If they were able to assemble, say, a "dirty bomb," is it likely that they would use it directly against us...within our borders? Probably not (although I doubt that they would hesitate, if given the chance). Perhaps they would just detonate it outside of one of our embassy buildings...or somewhere in Europe...or the Middle East (no doubt Israel would be on the top of their list). In any event, to state that Barack Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan "to prove that he is a true statesman" is just simplistic.

As I noted, I don't believe that we should be shouldering most of the burden of preventing such a calamity (especially since it's more likely to take place outside our borders)...we can't afford to protect the entire world. This is hardly a novel idea.

Still, you failed to even mention unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan in your article...and to dismiss, as you do, the potential dangers in this volatile region of the world with a simple "not a chance" is, well, naive.

If someone had asked you, ten years ago, whether "a bunch of 3rd world fanatics can launch" an AIRPLANE "attack on the US," would you have said "not a chance"?



On Mar 31 11:26 AM James Quinn wrote:

> It's naive to think that the term strategic interest doesn't mean
> OIL.
>
> It's also naive to think that a bunch of 3rd world fanatics can launch
> a nuclear attack on the US. Not a chance. That is neo-con BS. <br/>
>
> Spend the money on border control and port security.

Mar 31 02:13 PM

[Dave Wrixon:]

Doesn't you murdering more of each other than just about any other nation on Earth though does it?

As for standards of living, I am not so sure. Wait to the dollar crashes and then rework the per capita GDP. And GDP is a very false measure as it contains all that military spending amongst other things, which does not exactly add up to tangible wealth in most people's eyes.

When you're talking about Americans are you talking the Median or the Mean, or simply the super rich? If you are talking the median I think you find that there are a hell of lot of places in Europe that are better of than you are.


On Mar 31 02:26 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> America has always been a militant, domineering nation, but that's
> also why America is an economic powerhouse with great influence in
> global economic matters. We can make the world conform to our whims,
> instead of the other way around. In exchange, Americans enjoy an
> unparalleled security and standard of living.

Mar 31 03:03 PM

[dybydx:]

That pretty much says it. Just like how the US constitution says every man has right to bear arms, the US gov always make sure its got "enuf arms".

But then again, its in their job description to do everything humanly possible to maximize the welfare of the Americans. So far, they've done "one heck of a job!".

On Mar 31 02:26 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> America has always been a militant, domineering nation, but that's
> also why America is an economic powerhouse with great influence in
> global economic matters. We can make the world conform to our whims,
> instead of the other way around. In exchange, Americans enjoy an
> unparalleled security and standard of living.

Mar 31 04:11 PM

[James Quinn:]

The 3rd world fanatics used knives. A freaking $39 Wal-Mart deadbolt lock on the cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. Did the government agency FAA think of that? NO. Having 57,000 troops in Germany and 33,000 in Japan aren't stopping anything from happening. There are 6 billion people on earth. Is it our job to make sure they don't do anything bad? We spend $765 billion a year on the military. EVERY FREAKING DOLLAR IS BORROWED FROM FUTURE GENERATIONS.


On Mar 31 02:13 PM drbob66 wrote:

> "It's also naive to think that a bunch of 3rd world fanatics can
> launch a nuclear attack on the US. Not a chance. That is neo-con
> BS."
>
> Note that I included the possibility that our enemies obtain nuclear
> MATERIAL (not necessarily the weapons themselves). Is that impossible?
> Yes...according to YOU. But my point was that it is NOT impossible
> in the minds of our defense strategists. After 9/11, it seems that
> it would make sense to consider all possibilities. These "third world
> fanatics" have proven themselves capable of causing significant damage
> if they put their minds to it. If they were able to assemble, say,
> a "dirty bomb," is it likely that they would use it directly against
> us...within our borders? Probably not (although I doubt that they
> would hesitate, if given the chance). Perhaps they would just detonate
> it outside of one of our embassy buildings...or somewhere in Europe...or
> the Middle East (no doubt Israel would be on the top of their list).
> In any event, to state that Barack Obama is sending troops to Afghanistan
> "to prove that he is a true statesman" is just simplistic.
>
> As I noted, I don't believe that we should be shouldering most of
> the burden of preventing such a calamity (especially since it's more
> likely to take place outside our borders)...we can't afford to protect
> the entire world. This is hardly a novel idea.
>
> Still, you failed to even mention unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan
> in your article...and to dismiss, as you do, the potential dangers
> in this volatile region of the world with a simple "not a chance"
> is, well, naive.
>
> If someone had asked you, ten years ago, whether "a bunch of 3rd
> world fanatics can launch" an AIRPLANE "attack on the US," would
> you have said "not a chance"?
>

Mar 31 04:36 PM

[robert99:]

In internet parlance, this is commonly known as "pwnage."

On Mar 31 04:36 PM James Quinn wrote:

> The 3rd world fanatics used knives. A freaking $39 Wal-Mart deadbolt
> lock on the cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. Did the government
> agency FAA think of that? NO. Having 57,000 troops in Germany and
> 33,000 in Japan aren't stopping anything from happening. There are
> 6 billion people on earth. Is it our job to make sure they don't
> do anything bad? We spend $765 billion a year on the military. EVERY
> FREAKING DOLLAR IS BORROWED FROM FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Apr 01 05:13 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

James, you have written the article that I feel that I deserve to write. I didn't read it as carefully as I should, but when you pointed out the craziness of continuing with the Afghanistan farce, I didn't care what you wrote. I should mention that I agree with everything that you wrote. Keep up the great work.

I spent 5 years in the US military, and I have no problem at all with high military spending, but what is taking place now is a disgrace. When I look at General Petraeus, with ribbons almost up to his shoulder blades, almost none of which have anything to do with combat, I immediately think of a phrase used by the late Colonel David Hackworth - 'perfumed princes'. Hackworth was one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the U.S., and certain to become a general, but when I (accidentally) met him in Australia after he left the army, he described the command structure as hopeless.

I'm a democrat, but the first time I voted I voted for General Eisenhower. And General Bradley was right: moral superiority is the key to winning, or for that matter a sense of moral superiority. I wonder what Dick Cheny has to say about that.

Speaking of generals, never forget General Patton. He was dyslexic, but when he more or less cured it he read as much as 13 hours a day. That's why when you talk with some WW2 veterans they don't give you their outfit, they just say 'I was with Patton'.

Apr 01 10:16 AM

[biomedlives:]

Economic powerhouse?? Our massive debts to other nations, which continue to build on account of our trade deficit, considerably hamper our ability to conform to our whims.


On Mar 31 02:26 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> America has always been a militant, domineering nation, but that's
> also why America is an economic powerhouse with great influence in
> global economic matters. We can make the world conform to our whims,
> instead of the other way around. In exchange, Americans enjoy an
> unparalleled security and standard of living.

Apr 01 02:06 PM

[biomedlives:]

I meant
" ...considerably hamper our ability to make the world conform to our whims."

On Apr 01 02:06 PM biomedlives wrote:

> Economic powerhouse?? Our massive debts to other nations, which
> continue to build on account of our trade deficit, considerably hamper
> our ability to conform to our whims.

Apr 01 02:07 PM

[henarl:]

Politicians support those who support them. The military industrial complex spends billions on DC lobbyists and political campaign contributions and ex politicians can always land fat jobs with defense contractors. It's a mutual back scratching program.

Apr 01 02:32 PM

[PainfullyAware:]

Realize that Wikipedia is being "censored" now, but the events of history in general can not be "fudged" so well.

Smedley Butler - War Is A Racket
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The testifying in congress about the attempted coup on the Federal Government is worth noting. The names of the suspects are interesting in that their descendants still have enormous influence in Government and Finance.

Reality Will Be Reality Whether Believed In Or Not.

To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.

Apr 01 03:34 PM

[Svendthrift:]

We can't afford this empire. Full stop. Can't. Nadda. Nope.

And we don't benefit from it. Well, I'm using "we" to mean average Americans. They, the elite benefit. I just watch my buddies go off to war and come home blown up or screwed up. Their poor wives.

Ah well. What can't continue won't. And this can't, so it won't. We're going to lose the empire one way or another.

Sep 07 08:36 PM