View Poll Results: Is the US Military budget morally reasonable and sane?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • The budget is reasonable.

    8 34.78%
  • The budget is unreasonable.

    8 34.78%
  • The military budget is insane.

    7 30.43%
  • The military budget is immoral and insane.

    8 34.78%
  • War is good business and that is big military.

    1 4.35%
  • Imperialism and Empire are expensive, military required.

    3 13.04%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49

Thread: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

  1. #11
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Eisenhower was a failure as a president.
    No he wasn't.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    It's hard to rest with our brothers toiling beneath horrible tyranny. Like Uriah (2Sam11:6+), we sleep at the gates despite the lure of luxury.
    OK, I got your point. Be at peace.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Failure. Made America relatively weaker in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    No he wasn't.

  4. #14
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Failure. Made America relatively weaker in the world.
    No he didn't.

    Like most of what you say.

    It has no basis in reality.

    Welcome back by the way.

    You are most entertaining.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    No he didn't.

    Like most of what you say.

    It has no basis in reality.

    Welcome back by the way.

    You are most entertaining.
    Thanks, I took a break from politics and I think some of my philosophies have matured and shifted since the last go-round.

    I don't like the way Eisenhower handled the Suez crisis, Korea, or how the Soviet Union achieved superiority in the space race under his leadership. I think he was a well-meaning man, which you can see with some of what he tried to do in the civil rights arena, but he really sucked at taking his good intentions and turning them in to good plans that actually panned out to anything good.

  6. #16
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I don't like the way Eisenhower handled the Suez crisis
    He stopped Russia from getting involved in a conflict with Britain and France which would have forced the USA to intervene, the consequences of which would have been devestating.

    Korea,
    His hard line stance against China ended the war and provided for the relative peace we still enjoy today in the region.

    or how the Soviet Union achieved superiority in the space race under his leadership.
    Some people do give him flack for that but at the end of the day, there is absolutely no tactical edge the USA got from the moon landings except prestige.

    It is rumoured that JFK discussed the possibility of a joint moon landing with the Soviet Union with Kruschev

    However it is also rumoured that Kruschev turned down the venture as he didn't want NASA scientists discovering just how inferior their technology was to the USA's.

    The Soviet Union may have got the first satellite and the first person in space, but they did it by utulizing technology that wouldn't stand up to a Tomogochi in the 90's.

    The space Race as it were, is nothing more than a fable.

    The USA always had the edge.

    I think he was a well-meaning man
    He is one of the greatest Americans to ever live.

    Between his actions as Supreme Allied Commander and President one can honestly say he will go down in history as not only a great American, but a great human being.

    He wasn't the most lively or exciting President in the Republics history, but he was certainly one of the most practical.

    His biggest failure as President was not standing up to Mccarthysm.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    He stopped Russia from getting involved in a conflict with Britain and France which would have forced the USA to intervene, the consequences of which would have been devestating.
    He took the wrong side in this dispute. He hung our allies out to dry and supported Nasser and the Egyptians for no other reason than that he was butthurt because nobody bothered to consult him before they went in.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    His hard line stance against China ended the war and provided for the relative peace we still enjoy today in the region.
    He was SOFT on China, just like he was soft on the middle east. In the Korean war, once it was discovered that the Chinese had entered the war by sending a million troops across the border, General Macarthur wanted to attack Chinese cities. At that time, we could have beaten China, and won the Korean war outright.... although it would have taken a while and cost a lot more.

    Eisenhower refused, and he fired Macarthur over it. He wanted the Korean war to be "limited" and so leaving the problem to future generations (us).

    Douglas Macarthur is a far greater hero than Eisenhower ever will be. If Macarthur had his way, and assuming he was successful, there would be no North Korea today, and there would not be a communist China.

    We are unstable in that part of the world precisely because Eisenhower didn't have the balls to get the job done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Some people do give him flack for that but at the end of the day, there is absolutely no tactical edge the USA got from the moon landings except prestige.

    It is rumoured that JFK discussed the possibility of a joint moon landing with the Soviet Union with Kruschev

    However it is also rumoured that Kruschev turned down the venture as he didn't want NASA scientists discovering just how inferior their technology was to the USA's.

    The Soviet Union may have got the first satellite and the first person in space, but they did it by utulizing technology that wouldn't stand up to a Tomogochi in the 90's.

    The space Race as it were, is nothing more than a fable.

    The USA always had the edge.
    The Cold War was as much a propaganda war as it was an arms race. It was about winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world, who had to decide whether to adopt capitalism or communism. Sputnik and the early Soviet successes in the space race were a win for them.

    I think Kennedy was an utter failure on Cuba, but he did a great job getting us back in the space race.





    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    His biggest failure as President was not standing up to Mccarthysm.
    Yes, and here's another one I forgot about: he let thousands of Hungarians get slaughtered by the Soviets in Budapest because he would not support their uprising against the Soviet Union. Disgraceful.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    I agree that American Imperialism needs to end. We need to pull all of our military and diplomatic forces back inside the US Borders, throw the Useless Nations out on their ear, along with all foreign embassies and consulates here in the US, close the borders, and tell the rest of the world to go to Hell. We should be using those returned US forces to secure OUR borders. Maybe a couple divisions of Marines along some of those CA and AZ border areas with ROE that says "Shoot to KILL, on sight" will make the coyotes and illegals think twice about trying to cross the border. Sticking a couple US Navy vessels between FL and Cuba ought to end the raft people issue.

    Maybe after the next Volcano/Tsunami/Earthquake/German Invasion where the US doesn't show up to save the day people around the world will start to get a better idea of what they'd be missing.

  9. #19
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    He took the wrong side in this dispute. He hung our allies out to dry and supported Nasser and the Egyptians for no other reason than that he was butthurt because nobody bothered to consult him before they went in.
    He may have ended a nuclear war.

    And as a Brit stopped us from making a terrible mistake, we went into the Suez to recover our investments as a nation under the false pretense of peacekeeping.

    Eisenhower did the right thing.

    He was SOFT on China, just like he was soft on the middle east. In the Korean war, once it was discovered that the Chinese had entered the war by sending a million troops across the border, General Macarthur wanted to attack Chinese cities. At that time, we could have beaten China, and won the Korean war outright.... although it would have taken a while and cost a lot more.

    Eisenhower refused, and he fired Macarthur over it. He wanted the Korean war to be "limited" and so leaving the problem to future generations (us).
    Eisenhower threatened Nuclear War against China and the threats worked.

    Eisenhower showed great judgement in not getting involved in a ground war with the Chinese in North Korea or Chinese Soil.

    The continuation of North Korea is unfortunate but it was alot better than the alternative.

    Douglas Macarthur is a far greater hero than Eisenhower ever will be. If Macarthur had his way, and assuming he was successful, there would be no North Korea today, and there would not be a communist China.
    Macarthur had his day during WW2.

    Macarthur overeached during Korea and his dismissal by Truman was one of the most important in the United States history in maintaining civilian control over the military.

    The Cold War was as much a propaganda war as it was an arms race. It was about winning the hearts and minds of the rest of the world, who had to decide whether to adopt capitalism or communism. Sputnik and the early Soviet successes in the space race were a win for them.
    At the end of the day the point stands.

    The space race provided no tactical advantage for either party.

    We can get into an argument over how the moon landings or Sputnik effected the worlds view of the respective powers but at the end of the day that doesn't mean jack within the confines of who would have won a military conflict.

    Nations who aligned themselves with either side did not do so on the basis of who had the fanciest space toys.

    They did so in who offered them the most, whether that be financial, military or other aid.

    Yes, and here's another one I forgot about: he let thousands of Hungarians get slaughtered by the Soviets in Budapest because he would not support their uprising against the Soviet Union. Disgraceful.
    Again... unfortunate.

    But intervening may have meant an armed conflict between the USSR and the USA and it's allies.

    Not an option.

    Once again Eisenhower saw the bigger picture.

    He was a great president.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Is the price of Imperialism worth it?

    Are we the World's most Imperialistic Nation?
    We are the global hegemon, or the closest to it and we are a new form of Empire, a Democratic Empire. It is in our interests to promote democracy abroad, to shore up and create alliances and concerts amongst the global democracies, and to hem in and eventually overcome our autocratic opponents.

    Don't people realize what is happening?
    I would imagine so. It's been a major public policy discussion for quite some time.

    Is this news in the Major Media?
    You mean "News Flash: US Global Military Power, and wages wars and conducts policy to further its interests!" No I don't think that happens often.

    Are we over-militarized?
    No, under-militarized in terms of proportional expenditure and what I personally think deserves priority.

    Who gets the profit from all this?
    In the long run the United States, and the rest of the world.

    Why isn't this a campaign issue?
    Is foreign policy and defense spending not an issue that has been brought up in this campaign?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •