Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should US demilitarize?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:22 PM
Original message
Should US demilitarize?
Half of Federal budget to military in a bankrupt country where many children are hungry, country taken over military-industrial complex spreading terror and murder and pollution over the globe, troops positioned also on US soil ready to be used against their own people.

PS: hopefully discussion about this general topic is allowed, even though under DU rules it's not allowed not to "support the troops".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Not unless everyone else does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Why?
Edited on Sun Dec-21-08 06:53 PM by chrisa
We're not going to get invaded. That would be a logistical nightmare, even with current technology. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, all of our fancy gizmos would become useless if say, Russia, detonated a nuclear bomb over the US, creating an EMP blast. Our army is meant now to fight small wars with high-tech gadgets.

I see no problem with demilitarizing, but only to 20 - 30% of what we are now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
51. I'll correct you, the EMP range, even on a high atmosphere blast
will not kill every unshielded system in the country... though there is a range where every piece of unshielded electronics will go kapput

That said, US Mission Critical, MIL Grade, is shielded, to reduce that problem

Granted, ONE detonation will lead to full scale launch and MAD but that is a whole different kettle of fish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #51
70. Car computers and other 'consumer electronics.'
I guess my '72 VW bus with non-electronic ignition will work fine.

That latest Detroit marvel that most people own will be expensive scrap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
28. Who is this "everyone else"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
57. Including Blackwater USA -- funded by Rummy's Iraq invasion w too-few US forces -- on each coast? nt
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 10:06 PM by tiptoe


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. We should first abolish all law-enforcement agencies and if that's successful, abolish DoD. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Willing to bet we could cut it in half.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. I agree. Too damn much $ wasted on death and destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LakeSamish706 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't think that after the past 8 years the US can demilitarize, because the....
Bush regime have created enumerable enemies that would most certainly do the US harm if they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
30. Who?
There are no military powers capable, or frankly interested, in attacking us militarily.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. We have plenty of room to do so. You're being conned by the politicians.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 11:10 AM by mmonk
United States-$623 Billion, Rest of the world COMBINED-$500 Billion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, are you going to upset the acolytes
The High Church of Redemptive Violence doesn't brook dissent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. One large thermal nuclear warhead detonated in the jetstream should do the trick.
It will need to be a dirty bomb. No need to worry about any military anywhere after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. 50% more like 20%


Hell if we could just learn to live within our budget and pay off the national debt we could save (or spend on other programs) $237 BILLION a year.

Why do I have to live within my budget but the feds don't have to?

Why if I start a $50 Billion Ponzi scheme I go to jail but the feds don't go to jail for perpetuating a $2,000 Billion Ponzi scheme (social security)?*

* I am not saying to get rid of SS but currently it is a Ponzi scheme. The $$ you pay today aren't being put aside their and being used to pay older investors in the scheme (retirees). When you retire the system will work as long as we keep recruiting new investors (future workers). If the ratio of workers:retirees ever changes (like what will happen when the baby boomers retire) the system will fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. NOT a ponzi scheme....
Sorry to jump on a new guy with both feet, but SS is most definitely NOT a ponzi scheme, and any comparison between the two simply gives aid and comfort to the same privatizing/wheeling-and-dealing assholes who got this country so deep into the shit.

I have made it a personal project to never let attacks on SS go unanswered.

"So why is Social Security not a Ponzi scheme? Well, first of all it does not make wild claims about making money fast. It also does not claim to be investing your money so it is not actually fraudulent. It is also based on taxes so it is not a voluntary scheme like the original. Finally, when a person dies then the payout stops under Social Security so it is possible that some people who contribute never see a single penny returned. The Social Security Administration actually calls the program a "pay-as-you-go insurance system" and claims that it is sustainable as long as the population demographics of retirees and working people stay stable.

Regardless of the semantics, in the near future there will be many more retirees than working folks so the demographics shift will make Social Security pay out more than it takes in. According to the 2008 Social Security Administration report the program could cover 75 percent of scheduled benefits until 2082 after the current surplus exhausts in 2041."

http://www.wisebread.com/is-social-security-just-a-grand-ponzi-scheme


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Thank You!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. Yes it is
it's based on the clearly falce assumption of continuous growth, that dividends can be payed from future growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Trouble with reading comprehension?
It's an insurance program. You may consider the underlying assumptions to be false - most people don't - but for SS to be a fraudulent operation there must first be fraud involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Yes it is fraud
SS payment's used by governements for their wars and what not, promising that future generations will pay up their promises to those whose money they allready spent.

All very "legal" of course, since the banksters and politicians and other fraudsters are making the laws (that they thenmselves don't obey). It's all corrupt to the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. So are your car insurance then... same logic applies and it is broken
by the way, the RIGHT would love to get rid of the SS Administration and have been trying to PUSH the shit you are peddling since the 1930s, by the by.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. I don't have a car.
And nothing to do with AIG, either. :9

It's very simple, every system based on idea of continuous growth is a fraud, a Ponzi scheme, fun for few while it lasts but in the end just a broken promise - fraud. Civilization is a Ponzi scheme going back 10 000 years, all civilizations have collapsed when they have stopped growing and so will this one - the last one - in due time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #58
63. Then I have an idea for you, CHECK OUT of civilization
Edited on Tue Dec-23-08 12:37 AM by nadinbrzezinski
and given HISTORY of SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, I will offer the fact that YOU ARE WRONG

. it could be ANY FORM of insurance...

By the way, just try to check out of civilization... you could, in some areas even in this country... go ahead

You MIGHT try by checking out of the technology you are using RIGHT NOW... yes, I mean that computer, and language.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. In the process, don't worry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
31. As previously pointed out and additionally that number is only a little more than half
of what we spend on military, which is also a dead loss.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #7
71. "Why if I start a $50 Billion Ponzi scheme I go to jail..."
Correction: you go to your $7 million penthouse condo. Steal $50 and you go to jail to sleep on a urine-soak cement floor in a cell designed for half of the inhabitants...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Half?" That's a laugh. Not even during the Cold War. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Counting also
Federal war-debt etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Suddden demiliarization of an economy in which military spending is a major feature
would probably cause an already grim economic picture to get even worse. But you're right that demilitarization is absolutely necessary in the long run. A gradual tapering off cure is perhaps the only hope.

Rather than go cold turkey all at once, let us declare war on Antarctica (while we find a way to wean ourselves off of industrialized mass murder).

We all know that's where Osama Bin Ladin is hiding, so what are we waiting for?!?!
FUCK ANTARCTICA ! We're taking them out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. You're talking about policy choices, not *not* supporting actual troops
The military budget is bloated and the Bush era has been horrible in its tasking the military with all sorts of missions that ought to be filled by other agencies, like USAID, the state department, or UN relief organizations. So they're both bloated and spread too thing, resulting in an over dependence on contractors (not just mercs like Blackwater, but highly expensive civilian provisioning companies who do the work for times the cost the army would incur directly.

So it's a crazy unaccountable system that's contributing to bankrupting the nation and privatizing the US national security apparatus.

So, yeah, the budget oughta be cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jetphixer Donating Member (126 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
12. GW said just this
George W said this may years ago about a "STANDING ARMY" it is not wise to keep one. This is also the main reason for the second amendment. I personal think we should do this an require every citizen to attend military training every year an every person to own at least 1 gun. Have a good technical deterrent force (small) to engage in holding actions until the citizen army can respond .. An stop supporting the entire world We are going to have to this sooner or later that is stop being the police force of the world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
32. Please read "War is a Racket" by General Smedly Butler. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnOhioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. We cannot......should not, demilitarize........
but we can and should cut defense spending by at least 10-15%...the current outlay is unnecessary and unsustainable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
15. Not the right question...
the real question is whether we can continue to spend half our budget (counting veterans, nukes, R&D, intell, black ops) on something that can't really protect us in the modern world.

We spend far more than anybody else, and our military has been bogged down in a war against one country that doesn't even have an army.... or even a country, and another country that lives in the Middle Ages.

We've got 750 (at least) military bases overseas. Can we afford them? Not hardly.

What will happen to the economy if we cut back? The real question is what will happen if we don't change from a military economy to a real economy.

The cold, hard, economic fact of life is that the US cannot afford to be the militaristic, imperialistic power that it has been.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I hope
people would start to see it that way. Before they starve to death while army protects the shops to the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
16. But..but..then we couldn't play in The SuperPowerBowl!! USA!! USA!!
Not to mention the job losses in the Body Bag and Medals industry!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
19. I don't think we have much choice. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-21-08 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. We ought to dramatically INCREASE the military budget
But ONLY if we totally redefine the meaning of "national defense."

We need new sources of clean energy.

We need new infrastructure and public transportation

We need more hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses.

We need more disaster preparedness and emergency personnel.

We need homes, schools, factories, etc.


Defense spending is the hardest to cut back and the easiest to raise. Let's change the meaning of national defense to something that helps our people instead of invading others. Let's add more civilian groups and work to defend our future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Exactly...
We have pissed away the natural and financial resources of this country in search of empire.

We've got the best aircraft carriers and nuke subs, but our country is rotting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Like spying on Americans? There's lots of money and jobs in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
25. There needs to be some demilitarization or circumstances
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 10:41 AM by mmonk
will force it like what happended to the Soviet Union. I think that point is coming closer and what could have been avoided won't with us as the victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
26. Yes
It's amazing the wealth we've squandered on our imperial project. What's the point?

Just think what could be done to support the people -- including the (ex)troops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. Follow General Butler's plan and we could drop the budget about 80% and by
investing about 10% of the reduction in helping the poor of the world we all but eliminate any need at all.

In the sage words of Mike Gravel, "Who do you think it is that's going to attack us? What are you preparing for?"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_bryanto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
34. Nope
I don't think so anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
35. Definitely.
Failing to do so WILL have grave consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishbulb703 Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
36. Half of federal budget? You are an idiot that doesn't even know English. And no.
We need to keep the ability to nuke or engage clandestine services, period.
Maintaining our conventional military is an issue that needs to be discussed, but clearly not by you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. It is half of the DISCRETIONARY federal budget
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 07:15 PM by TorchesAndPitchforks
CMS and SSA are funded separately through the payroll tax (lockbox anyone?). All other budget items are discretionary. That's the part of the budget that counts. Fully half goes to national defense.


Do we really need to spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Yup
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 07:22 PM by tama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
40. It didn't hurt Japan
After WWII demilitarization drastically improved their economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. thats because we assumed the responsibility
for defending Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #44
65. Oh you go ahead and point these facts.
and the other fact is that Japan has been rebuilding its force over the last eight years and has finally sent forces away from the homeland... though they had to vote on Article 8, which we pushed for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
41. We could cut our military budget by 50% and still have the biggest armed force on the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
42. Absolutely Not. We Need To Maintain A Strong Military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. And Empire
subjugating rest of the world for your perverse needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Why Yes, That's It Exactly.
:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
73. I agree with you.
While even I think spending could be reined in a tad and the net result wouldn't weaken our military one iota, that's just my personal opinion and, yes, we need a strong military regardless. Maybe one day it won't be necessary and every human will be singing the Smurfs' theme song and making leis out of daisies. Until then, reality has shown otherwise and we need a strong military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
46. I'm guessing that we won't have much of a choice, at some point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
47. absolutely de militarize. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
52. No, we will REDUCE our expenditure, but NO NATION that wants to survive
will EVER FULLY DEMILITARIZE, and before you bring the examples of Costa Rica (national police) or switzerland, (National service in the MILITARY).

We will see a cut, brought by the end of Empire, but a full abandonment of the military as an institution, that is a dream and biological sciences point to why.. do some research on Chimpanzee wars. Yes, my dear, might be hard wired into the genetic code of humanoids
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. Sami people
are also a nation, they are still surviving, they were never militarized and never went to war. Amish people are a nation, they are surviving and doing fine, they were never militarized and never went to war.

So you are not talking about nations but states. There are still many stateless nations that survive - and will survive after states collapse under their own greed and impossibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. No I am talking about biology
and we are finding more and more info that yes war, and war-making for resources may be hard wired

And no, I don't think Chimps are nations either... or have them

Now tell me, what is the percentage in the human population of the two groups you mentioned? Less than one tenth of one percent of world population?

Here is some research for you

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050209_warfrm.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3317461/Apes-of-war...-is-it-in-our-genes.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/6987795.stm

And that is the tip of the damn iceberg...

But what some scientists are concluding is that war (not the way we practice it right now) may be hard wired and have some evolutionary advantages, and be driven by resource competition... fruit, oil, water, oil, same dif, different species.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. Science
is full of theories about dis and dat. Let them theorize. Your truth is how you live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
53. No -- but it *should* "rightsize".
I just read where our navy is larger than the next thirteen largest navies combined -- ten of which belong to our allies. What is wrong with this picture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
55. We should switch over to a Japanese-style self defense force.
Edited on Mon Dec-22-08 09:52 PM by roamer65
Basically a pre-1941 ideology.

Stop the occupations and let other countries provide for their own defense.

Including Germany and Japan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. we spot them a military
who will spot us? I like being able to talk shit without someone blowing my face off with an ak round, taliban style.

I vote no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
56. Hell yeah!
Most of the "defense" budget is fraud, waste and abuse.

I'm a former Army officer.

First rule we need is a law against general officers working for ANY BUSINESS that does business with the government after retirement. NO EXCEPTIONS.

They have a very healthy retirement package. If that's not enough incentive for them to serve the Nation, they can FUCK OFF and seek a career in the civilian sector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ani Yun Wiya Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-22-08 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
62. Absolutely.
War is the greatest of crimes against humanity, and therefore all civilized persons should seek it's end.

Ending war means getting rid it's structures:

1. Armies, navies and air forces.
2. Military grade weapons.
3. Those leaders of governments who would ever consider war as an "option".



Humanity should actively be pursuing the goals of the United Nations at the very least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
66. reduce it by 80%
and restore Congress's war powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
69. You should have framed your question better
You'd have to be crazy not to think the US military budget is in serious need of reduction and reform. We could cut military spending by 20%, be smarter with the remaining 80%, use the savings to make college free for everyone, and end up with a more secure country.

But when you say, "Should the US demilitarize?" the thread ends up being littered with posts saying we shouldn't zero out military funding. Posts like that are obvious and boring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-23-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
72. Pacifism only works when 100% or more of the population does it.
In other words, if you want a non-militarized government, I recommend you find some plot of land and make your own country.

I will wish you the best of luck and success, though unlike the economy, your newly founded country wouldn't last very long.

As an intellectual topic, there is nothing wrong with your post, even if you ultimately did display your personal opinion that we are "...country taken over military-industrial complex spreading terror and murder and pollution over the globe, troops positioned also on US soil ready to be used against their own people."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Feb 17th 2025, 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC