Military Spending

[Tyme]

There should be a law that says the U.S. can't spend more than double the next country in line.

Yay or nay

[Vort]

What a stupid law that would be.

(You'll have to figure out my "yea or nay" stance based on my cryptic comment above.)

[JohnsonJones]

Nay.

[anatess2]

For what purpose?

Okay, let's do that same thing with Environmental Protection too.  Let's spend a maximum of double the amount of the next country in line.  How about the State of Illinois can only spend no more than double the amount of the next State in line on their Law Enforcement? 

Do you want that $ per capita or $ per square kilometer?  Will the next country in line have a limitation of spending only a maximum of double the amount of the country 3rd in line and so on and so forth?

Anyway, this is stupid.  If you want to win all wars, you have to be able to have a military so well resourced as to win the war even if ALL OTHER NATIONS fight you all at the same time.

 

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

What a stupid law that would be.

(You'll have to figure out my "yea or nay" stance based on my cryptic comment above.)

It's quite reasonable. I'll slash my budget and you'll reduce your armaments and we'll try to kill each other like civilized people.

 

[Midwest LDS]

Nay. I'd agree that's a good idea as soon as every other country on Earth disarms before us and we can verify it.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

It's quite reasonable. I'll slash my budget and you'll reduce your armaments and we'll try to kill each other like civilized people.

 

It's not our fault we're the biggest and strongest. I don't even lift, dude.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Tyme said:

There should be a law that says the U.S. can't spend more than double the next country in line.

Why should there be such a law?  I can't fathom why anyone would want this, unless that person was not informed about why things are the way things are currently...

[zil]

17 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Nay. I'd agree that's a good idea as soon as every other country on Earth disarms before us and we can verify it.

Even that doesn't make it a good idea.  To give up your sovereignty to another is irresponsible at best; it is to willfully enter into slavery, to shed your agency like a snake sheds its skin, but without any benefit to doing so.

[Midwest LDS]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Even that doesn't make it a good idea.  To give up your sovereignty to another is irresponsible at best; it is to willfully enter into slavery, to shed your agency like a snake sheds its skin, but without any benefit to doing so.

Oh I agree. My example was set in a utopian age that I can only imagine happening when Christ comes again. Basically until then I always want to outspend the other two combined.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[zil]

Just now, Midwest LDS said:

Basically until then I always want to outspend the other two combined.

IMO, it's not about outspending, it's about letting another decide your spending (even indirectly).  If such an agreement were entered into, it would be used to control and leverage the other party - that is a form of giving up one's sovereignty - at that point, one is not, by definition, a sovereign nation, but a colony, a subject state.

NOTE: I'm commenting on the whole thread more than just your post, FYI.  Of course, when Christ comes, there will be no need for such silliness, and until then, it would be foolish to give up our sovereignty.

[Fether]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

dude.

Bro*

[Vort]

Just now, Fether said:

Bro*

I can't keep up with the hepcat phraseology today's whippersnappers are using. It's all phat, dig?

[Just_A_Guy]

My limited understanding is that the Pentagon just had its first audit in a very long time (ever?), and didn’t do so well.  Before we put arbitrary defense spending caps in place, I think we need a clear-headed idea of where the money’s actually going.  

Conceptually, I think the two-war doctrine is a good starting point; and I think our defense spending needs to be at least enough to support that doctrine—whatever the final amount may be.  

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I can't keep up with the hepcat phraseology today's whippersnappers are using. It's all phat, dig?

That's like... not even.

"I've got news for you. I'm down, I've got the 411, and you are not going out and getting jiggy with some boy, I don't care how dope his ride is. Mamma didn't raise no fool."

[Fether]

How about this. If there were no borders, then we would have no need for a military! I’m not arguing for open boarders, but rather expanding our boarders. 

Right now America is this.

 

 

Why can’t it be this?

PROS:

1) No more illegal immigration

2) No more war

3) We will get to use the whole of our $50,000,000,000,000+ worth of military goods all in on decade to fully expand the boarders

4) drastically cut military spending for the future

5) Everyone is a shotgun weilding patriotic American driving a truck

 

CONS:

1) None

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Fether

[Tyme]

I think making our military spending 2/1 would lower global military spending overall. That would be a good thing in my opinion. The money could be used domestically to improve peoples lives.

[Tyme]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

How about this. If there were no borders, then we would have no need for a military! I’m not arguing for open boarders, but rather expanding our boarders. 

Right now America is this.

 

 

Why can’t it be this?

PROS:

1) No more illegal immigration

2) No more war

3) We will get to use the whole of our $50,000,000,000,000+ worth of military goods all in on decade to fully expand the boarders

4) drastically cut military spending for the future

5) Everyone is a shotgun weilding patriotic American driving a truck

 

CONS:

1) None

 

I'm all for a North American Union. Then possibly expand it over time.

I'm going to show my inhumane side a bit here. When the U.S. first created the nuclear bomb why didn't we take over the world? It would be a much better and peaceful world right now.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

What a stupid law that would be.

(You'll have to figure out my "yea or nay" stance based on my cryptic comment above.)

Fence-sitter.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

CONS:

1) None

0) Most of Europe and Asia would vote Democrat.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, Tyme said:

 

I'm going to show my inhumane side a bit here. When the U.S. first created the nuclear bomb why didn't we take over the world? It would be a much better and peaceful world right now.

Because at the time we had a lily-livered, hippie-dippy, panty-waist Democrat as President; natch.  

Incidentaly, Truman won in ‘48 by telling people that the Republican candidate (Thomas Dewey) was a fascist.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I'm all for a North American Union. Then possibly expand it over time.

I'm going to show my inhumane side a bit here. When the U.S. first created the nuclear bomb why didn't we take over the world? It would be a much better and peaceful world right now.

You know why Canada and Mexico did not become US States?  For a very simple reason.  They did not want to.  They fought wars with the US to retain sovereignty.

What makes the USA great is their unique culture forged by their history to have utmost respect for LIBERTY.  Unless you forge the same culture to immigrants joining in the American Experiment, the greatness of the USA will, eventually, be LOST.  Therefore, it is to the preservation of US exceptionalism to make the USA a much harder process to become American.  Puerto Rico, for example, should not become a US State.

Edited November 19, 2018 by anatess2

[Tyme]

Just now, anatess2 said:

You know why Canada and Mexico did not become US States?  For a very simple reason.  They did not want to.  They fought wars with the US to retain sovereignty.

What makes the USA great is their unique culture forged by their history to have utmost respect for LIBERTY.  Unless you forge the same culture to immigrants joining in the American Experiment, the greatness of the USA will, eventually, be LOST.

Have you ever been to a citizenship ceremony? They are more patriotic than most Americans I know.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Have you ever been to a citizenship ceremony? They are more patriotic than most Americans I know.

I am Filipino.  I am more American-patriotic than a lot of Americans.  My mother went through the citizenship ceremony.  We had a party.  It took her 5 years to become one plus 3 months studying for the test.  She knows a lot more about American Government than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who got elected to Congress.  Alexandria, of course, wants to take in all those people in the caravan waving foreign flags and burning the American one and make them Americans.

Edited November 19, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because at the time we had a lily-livered, hippie-dippy, panty-waist Democrat as President; natch.  

Sometimes your legal terminology is unintelligible to the lay person.