Should the United States be Submissive?
In comments regarding my post about the percent of GDP we spend on Defense, a reader thinks that by paying so much for retired and injured personnel the United States might think twice before engaging an enemy. I’m going to just take my thread and continue it here … easier for you all to read …
Nothing like that will happen at all. We have many injured during wars and conflicts. You’ll find that the men who fought in WWII are more apt to support our current action. War was hell back then. No one even wants to have our fighting men and women to be injured or heaven forbid killed in action. But there are more important things to be dealt with in this world.
Turns out that the politicians are the ones that want to reduce the benefits. The Joint Chiefs are paid by the politicians. Too much Washingtonization no balls debate and polls management is what is causing cuts in benefits - or more appropriately increases in fees to the patient/ex-military members and families - and that is what is criminal in this case.
If how much it costs is the only factor, that is where freedom breaks down. For the United States to be free there MUST be a United States Military. And that means that we support past and present brave fighting men and women.
Interesting to note, the UK spends a ton on previous officers and their families who have fought to protect the people. The enlisted force is a proud body of men and women, but they are less “supported” … it happens everywhere.
Just because it costs money to do what is right is NEVER a reason to sit in the corner with your thumb in your mouth. Someone else will come along and smack it out of your mouth - and you will always be their submissive.
I, for one, am NOT a submissive. I refuse to see my country cower in the corner.
K? 
March 17th, 2006 at 6:51
I didn’t use words like “cower” or “submissive”. I believe I actually said “circumspect”. Do you really disagree with me?
We can sit around admiring each others’ balls all day, but that doesn’t change the fact that when something costs more you’re less inclined to do it. Post-Vietnam American operations have been arranged so that they cost almost nothing — they have no impact at all on the civilian’s way of life, disregarding (not that I do) the soldiers killed in action. Money spent as proportion of GDP shows this. Any Vietnam style engagement would be impossibly unpopular today, unless it was truly necessary.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:36
I do disagree with you if money is the only reason to be circumspect. As I stated, even though I was ranting a tad bit too much, if money is the reason to NOT do something right then all is lost. I did not say “you”, Jez, said cower or submissive. Sorry if you got that from my rant-like way through my points to be made.
Everyone must admit that anti-war sentiment is the core of the protests on Capitol Hill. And I use sentiment because this is all based on emotion not true logic and careful study of history - and thine enemy’s history.
I am discounting the action of being circumspect right away. Being circumspect on a moral, not monetary, front is a given. My whole point is to go beyond the standard careful consideration of all circumstances and consequences. For Capitol Hill to get on its High Horse about how much things cost, like the war, is ludicrous! To hide behind money/cost of war is fallacious, which in turn is then submissive - IMHO.
Entitlement programs are what is criminal, not the cost of the war. Socialism is going to be the death of the United States of America.
It’s all about anti-war. It’s all about political power. It’s all about getting re-elected. It’s all about paying off whiners with stupid causes. It’s all about sounding tough on terror but selling out the military behind their backs. It’s all about blatant power grabs and not doing what is right.
Aww, I’ve gone on too long here - I hope I was clear and not wandering?
(i’m still a little keyed up, Jez, and not at you)
March 18th, 2006 at 4:52
“I do disagree with you if money is the only reason to be circumspect.”
A reason, not only reason. It’s not like money doesn’t come into it. At an extreme, you cannot do what you can’t afford.
“Being circumspect on a moral, not monetary, front is a given.”
I wish I could agree with you, but I can’t. I suspect our governments of being gung-ho and trivialising the act of war. I know we disagree, I’m just laying out my position. Therefore, imo, installing the financial disinsentive is better than nothing.
I’m confused: did we agree that vets deserve more? You’re talking about socialism, and I can’t tell if you’re including service pensions.