I'm sick of American Presidents using freedom as a excuse for war.

I find it ironic that our country, modeled on captalism, tries to conquer through brute force and religion. While a country built on wholesale slaughter and waging war, like China, now conquers through foreign investment and infrastructure.

The modern US economy was most certainly built on brute force and war.

armchair_warrior said:

money is the root of all evil or good etc.. fix the money first in a market economy the rest would be easier to fix.

people rob people for money, people kill for money, people work for money, people marry for money etc....

Once those issues are fix, money would be use more wisely

etc...

If it wasn't money then it would be something else. Possession of every thing is innate human nature. Women, wine or song, ya know?

Democratic voters tend to feel very strongly about cutting defense.

What they don't look carefully at is social service spending.

I've reached the conclusion that there is lots of waste in both defense and social services.

I hope they are both cut to a level that reduces this waste.

....it doesn't matter to me which cut comes first, as long as the other one is cut second.

I don't believe our government is competent enough to cut two things at the same time.

I disagree.

...but I am likely biased by who I hang out with and what media sources I consume.

As the son of a Colonel in the Marines, I was taught to measure the cost of wars in terms of deaths to our soldiers, the soldiers on the other side, and civilians.

Disorders such as PTSD also were given weight.

These costs were measured against gains to be achieved by the military action.

I argue that these costs exceed that which can be measured fiscally.

These costs are debated and planned for by those who carry out our nation's conflicts; the fiscal impact of the conflicts receive less attention.

To be fair,

Those in favor of social service programs also focus on the social benefits their programs are designed to deliver, and are equally unconcerned with the monetary cost.

(I don't hang out with people who focus on money; I try to read my media sources with a different lens)

The armed forces argues that they should have the best equipment available, and that cost should not be a factor.

Better equipment = less lives lost.

As a result of seeing this logic, many in the Executive and Legislative branches (whether they be democrats or republican) will never cut the defense budget; They are convinced the costs of cutting the budget are too great. They do not perceive themselves as "myopic".

For better or worse, the military can effectively lay down an ace and win the game.

....if you have ever had a friend or family member die in a conflict, you might find yourself defending the military's "ace".

The friends and families, along with those actually serving, don't get to care if a conflict is "just" or not. ....they only get to care that their loved one comes home.

The politicians (as you point out) often have different priorities entirely. Armchair and I perceive the political parties to be very similar as result. You now admit that you trust neither party when it comes to the defense budget.

Does this leaves you in the position of stating that the democrats will build and support a large military, yet not use it? Somehow the democrats are exempt from Einstein's assertion that "we can not simultaneously prepare for war and work for peace", yet the republicans are not?

Social Services advocates have no such "ace", and likely never will.

You're generalizing and oversimplifying as if arguing against the F22 program is the same as arguing against body armor for soldiers in Baghdad.

I make no such arguments, but the same arguments are used to justify each. Everyone would prefer to use an expensive fighter jet, than depend upon body armor.

I'm told, even when it works, depending upon body armor is a really bad idea.

As you are aware, most people in the military vote republican. As a result of being a partisan "voting block", every election there is a battle over "where" they get to vote and whether their votes should count.

Active and retired military is a huge segment of the republican's support, and they are also a huge segment of american society.

You know how republicans are against the people who only register to vote as a result of "motor voter" efforts? Democrats do a very similar act when it comes to military votes ...they don't want them to vote, because they know how they are going to vote.

In addition to wanting (or not wanting....) their vote, republicans and democrats love the revenue that comes from having a base in their district, but if there is one who is less supportive (aka "more critical") of defense spending, it is the democrats.

....as you are aware, there are not enough democrats critical of the defense budget to currently make a difference. Although you may be able to find years in which defense spending is cut, the trend line is consistently toward higher spending.

When enough people believe that "the politicians will not use our military in the future for stupid wars", they will cut defense spending.

Politicians who are opposed to stupid wars even vote for more military spending because they believe some other politician will successfully get our troops into war.

(welcome to what is discussed on holidays with Dad. The conversation concludes with us both agreeing that this country is insane but that it will never change. Then we have our 4th beer, and conclude we are again going to hold our nose when we vote in the next election.)

As Armchair points out, both parties are very similar in that they often "suck". They may suck for different reasons, but I can relate to him thinking those are minor.

ah, the F22. Dare I draw an analogy to health care?

....in the same way that the military uses its ace of "more expensive equipment saves lives who cares what it costs", can you see a parallel in the behavior health care advocates?

In the same way this country is blinded by the fear of a needless military or civilian death, we are also blinded by the fact that grandma's death is actually unpreventable despite how much we spend....

Another similarity is that pesky Kruger health care scandal that sounds a lot like the defense industry incest you refer to above.

more and more spending results.

...the white voter decides the Tea Party may be nutty, but might be a better option the existing two.

...the less privileged end up with the now pathetic ACORN, and still pathetic Working Families Parties.

Yet we stumble forward. Why can't someone invent an icon for that? I could post it like I did the ace.