Is the government spending to much on Military?

[Awesome]

Right now USA is in critcal condition in terms of economy. There are to many people here with to many needs, most of them are legit important needs. Health, education, social secruity.

A huge portion of our budget goes to the military. WooHoo, we're big, strong and powerful. And we also got a hand full of reliable allies and a truck full of other allies. We're through the roof powerful. I think USA is spending a tad to much in military power. We got allies, they can help us in times of war. Im not saying screw the military, just help the economy a bit more.

[Angel Androgynous]

Yep. The USA government needs to stop French kissing the military's ass a little and spend more money on education and health care...

[Schizothemia]

It unfortunately stems from the massive military industrial complex America has. We always need to have the biggest and best guns to take out whoever is our enemy at the time. And whenever we don't have an enemy we find one, or make one.

However, people are oblivious to this because there is so much fear propogated in the media that many Americans feel there is no choice but to constantly develop our military. While our military is impressive, it has taken so much from our education and infrastructure that it just doesn't seem healthy.

America used to be amongst the top leading countries in education, we've however fallen since then. Instead of pooling all of our money into the military, lets build a well educated work force that will help the countries economy thrive and succeed!

Unfortunately it seems like more and more now, people have issues thinking long term. A lot of companies for example try to maximize their profits in the short term, not caring about the business' sustainability. The same seems to be happening now in terms of the American budget.

So in short, yes, I think the government is pooling far too much of the tax payers money into a ridiculous military that is already more advanced than the rest of the world.

[Unlucky_Leprechaun]

No, I do not believe so... Many things have come about through the advances in military high tech.. for instance... GPS... it was found for the US military yet, so many people have benefited from it, there are tons of other examples as well that have been spurned from the defense industry.
Can we be more selective and wiser with spending...absolutely..and we should be..however, there needs to be a balance and the key to a having a strong military is through high tech innovations that cost money...

[embers]

Cue Bimmerhead.

[Azunite]

Cue Bimmerhead.

He probably got himself conscripted to prove us how supreme the army is.

US should disband it's entire army and work for Greenpeace, after all they have done to this world.

[Amnesiac]

No, I do not believe so... Many things have come about through the advances in military high tech.. for instance... GPS... it was found for the US military yet, so many people have benefited from it, there are tons of other examples as well that have been spurned from the defense industry.
Can we be more selective and wiser with spending...absolutely..and we should be..however, there needs to be a balance and the key to a having a strong military is through high tech innovations that cost money...

Sure, the military has given us some important technologies, especially the Internet. However, that doesn't even come close to compensating for the thousands of innocent lives and hundreds of billions of dollars we waste on the military's pointless excursions to the other side of the world. The very few technologies that come from the military are usually just improvements on existing technology anyway, and it can take decades before they're actually introduced to the public.

The private sector exists to create and introduce to the public new technologies, not the government. The only exception is NASA, which should continue as a government agency until corporations can afford to invest in space technology.

[Jess]

oh definitely. the US should be spending more on things to help the economy, things that are more important than the military, like education

[RoseyCadaver]

Yep. The USA government needs to stop French kissing the military's ass a little and spend more money on education and health care...

This.



Yes,we're way overspending on military,I think it's just to show how "bad" we're.I sadly now we won't stop spending so much on military.It might just be lil ol' hippie me,but I believe we have better things to be spending money on.

[Perseus]

US should disband it's entire army and work for Greenpeace, after all they have done to this world.

Yeah, they would not be a smart idea. We should have a military, but we shouldn't spend so much money on it. If the Republicans and Democrats came to an agreement to cut spending on military, I think we'd be very well off and wouldn't have to raise taxes like Obama wants to, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Though, I know the government would rather cut spending to education than military, which is fucking stupid.

[josh93]

Yes they are. Big time.

[Azunite]

Yeah, they would not be a smart idea. We should have a military, but we shouldn't spend so much money on it. If the Republicans and Democrats came to an agreement to cut spending on military, I think we'd be very well off and wouldn't have to raise taxes like Obama wants to, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Though, I know the government would rather cut spending to education than military, which is fucking stupid.


I was jesting, Perseus. Of course every nation should have a bulky army to defend itself. But they can and they should reduce the expenditure on military.

[PetaByte]

Right now USA is in critcal condition in terms of economy. There are to many people here with to many needs, most of them are legit important needs. Health, education, social secruity.

A huge portion of our budget goes to the military. WooHoo, we're big, strong and powerful. And we also got a hand full of reliable allies and a truck full of other allies. We're through the roof powerful. I think USA is spending a tad to much in military power. We got allies, they can help us in times of war. Im not saying screw the military, just help the economy a bit more.

I just want all wars to end. Period. That way, all Military can stop, no lives will be lost and the money can go to better resources.
(Yes, I know what I posted is subject to a long and powerful discussion, but meh, that's how I feel)

[Awesome]

I just want all wars to end. Period. That way, all Military can stop, no lives will be lost and the money can go to better resources.
(Yes, I know what I posted is subject to a long and powerful discussion, but meh, that's how I feel)

Don't we all want an end at wars. But sadly we need an army, just ours is getting way to much money.

[Schizothemia]

I just want all wars to end. Period. That way, all Military can stop, no lives will be lost and the money can go to better resources.
(Yes, I know what I posted is subject to a long and powerful discussion, but meh, that's how I feel)

Unfortunately, here in the US, that seems like an impossibility. We love having an enemy and do whatever it takes to create one. Even if the wars were to end, our troops were completely withdrawn and we somehow created a peaceful compromise amongst the numerous extremist groups and parties in the Middle East, there will be some new looming threat on the horizon, calling for us to spend what we are on the military, or if there isn't an immediate threat then we need to "prepare for any eminent danger."

[Stefani]

There are many other problems that the government has. Improving public schools, the economy, health care, etc. I think war is a waste of time, money, and lives. even if we won the losses would be to great.

[Harlequin]

Well in truth i think we should at least pull out our troops from the middle east.

But we should not stop military funding.

three reasons.
1) They are our protection.
2) If we spend our own money and resources better we would not have to pick and choose which type of funding our money would go to.
3) War is nasty and kills and harms, but if we go the way of our roman ancestors and spend our money elsewhere we will dull our spear and loose what we have gained.

[Sugaree]

Well, Bimmerhead hasn't shown up yet. Better get in the good posts now.

The United States is very centralized about its military. There's no way to get past that. We have bases all over the world (Germany, Japan, Guam, Italy, Greece and South Korea just to name a few). Most of these bases aren't even necessary for our military. The only one that can be deemed "useful" is Camp Panzer Kaserne, which boasts a very large military hospital for the wounded. Our military presence there is not welcomed by the Germans for obvious reasons. We have no business being in other countries and setting up air bases. Billions go to all these bases overseas, which only furthers our already 750 billion dollar bill for military spending. The United States also spends money for things such as the TSA, the National Guard, and on top of THAT, the manufacturing of weapons for those organizations. If we were to cut our spending for defense in half, we could easily pay almost 400 billion dollars towards lowering our debt. But as long as we have a military, we will continue funding it, no matter what.

[DoctorWho]

They spend to much money on the military then there own country

[Ben Michael]

Ok if we didn't upkeep a strong military we would be more lazy than we are now and we'd be an easy target to any country and if you havent noticed we could go to war with N. Korea or China at any moment so we need to be strong and we're kind of at war now so we may spend a bit more on that, what we dont need is universal health care.

[Perseus]

Ok if we didn't upkeep a strong military we would be more lazy than we are now and we'd be an easy target to any country and if you havent noticed we could go to war with N. Korea or China at any moment so we need to be strong and we're kind of at war now so we may spend a bit more on that, what we dont need is universal health care.

How would we be lazy? Also, universal healthcare would help the people more than a strong military would. Don't see why anybody would be opposed to that. I bet you don't have a legit reason.

[Sugaree]

Ok if we didn't upkeep a strong military we would be more lazy than we are now and we'd be an easy target to any country and if you havent noticed we could go to war with N. Korea or China at any moment so we need to be strong

We won't be "more lazy" if we didn't have a strong military. Even if we didn't have a strong military, we would be no sitting duck. Do you realize how quick we could respond to an attack on our own soil? We wouldn't sit around with our thumbs up our asses like you think we would. North Korea and China are moot points in this thread.

and we're kind of at war now so we may spend a bit more on that, what we dont need is universal health care.

No, we may not spend more money on the two useless wars we're fighting now. We're policing the world like we own it and it's disgusting. If the Middle East succumbs to fighting, who cares? The region has been fighting over everything in that area since history has been recorded. Leave them alone and let them annihilate each other.

Universal healthcare? Really? This wasn't even meant to be brought up in this thread. Did you know that the United States is the only country in the world without a universal healthcare system? It would be a great help to many uninsured people in the United States and would help those who are already insured to avoid financial ruin just because they got sick.

[Iris]

If the Middle East succumbs to fighting, who cares? The region has been fighting over everything in that area since history has been recorded. Leave them alone and let them annihilate each other.

Wow. That is the worst way to deal with the conflict there that I have ever heard.

[vegangurl03]

stop going to war and then we dont need a military!!!!! hahahaha. jk. wouldnt that be awesome....?

[TheMatrix]

Wow. That is the worst way to deal with the conflict there that I have ever heard.
Not really. As long as they don't interfere with anyone else, then it's perfectly fine, maybe even the best way of doing things.

stop going to war and then we dont need a military!!!!! hahahaha. jk. wouldnt that be awesome....?
That would be nice, yes, but it probably won't happen. Some people in this world can't be nice, and it leads to things like war.

[Iris]

Not really. As long as they don't interfere with anyone else, then it's perfectly fine, maybe even the best way of doing things.


What about the people who are stuck in middle of it all? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be massacred. The fight won't stop until one of the sides are wipe out. The loss of life from just the soldiers would be astronomical. The human rights abuses in the areas of war would be terrible. The economy would fall to pieces. The entire area would become a bloody, nightmarish mess. It would end up being even worse than it is now, guaranteed.

[Sugaree]

What about the people who are stuck in middle of it all? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be massacred. The fight won't stop until one of the sides are wipe out. The loss of life from just the soldiers would be astronomical. The human rights abuses in the areas of war would be terrible. The economy would fall to pieces. The entire area would become a bloody, nightmarish mess. It would end up being even worse than it is now, guaranteed.

So it will remain the same is what you're saying, correct?

[Iris]

So it will remain the same is what you're saying, correct?

Right now the fight is contained to mostly guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Yes, there are still civilians suffering, and yes, every day there are soldiars on both sides dying. But letting those terrorists run loose would mean death, oppression, barbarism. For example, the Taliban government would be re-established, which would lead to HUGE human rights abuses, far more than there is now. And eventually, after the Middle East is under the control of vicious, extremist dictators, they'll turn their attention to the rest of the world as well.

[Sugaree]

Right now the fight is contained to mostly guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Yes, there are still civilians suffering, and yes, every day there are soldiars on both sides dying. But letting those terrorists run loose would mean death, oppression, barbarism. For example, the Taliban government would be re-established, which would lead to HUGE human rights abuses, far more than there is now. And eventually, after the Middle East is under the control of vicious, extremist dictators, they'll turn their attention to the rest of the world as well.

Yeah, no. There would be far too many power struggles as to who has actual control in the Middle East. They'll eventually fight over that and we can leave them alone. I see no harm in just leaving the area alone because getting involved in the mess is like navigating through a swamp in sandals. Even if the Taliban government takes control of the entire Middle East, which would be a feat in itself, the U.N. and NATO will have no problem in keeping them in check.

[Iris]

Yeah, no. There would be far too many power struggles as to who has actual control in the Middle East. They'll eventually fight over that and we can leave them alone. I see no harm in just leaving the area alone because getting involved in the mess is like navigating through a swamp in sandals. Even if the Taliban government takes control of the entire Middle East, which would be a feat in itself, the U.N. and NATO will have no problem in keeping them in check.

And who gets caught up in all those power struggles? People live in this battleground. Constant warring between different countries will end up being like the warring of different tribes in Africa-hundreds of thousands would be massacred. There would be utter lawlessness, rapes, murders, thievery, homelessness, starvation, new lows in poverty. Again, far FAR worse than there is now. Control of land would change hands every few days. Everyone there would live in constant fear. The damage to the Middle East would be unbelievable.

"no harm"??? Even if, as you seem to believe, civilians won't be harmed (which is ridiculous), the soldiers will be. Soldiers are people too, you know. Hundreds of thousands will be killed, more injured. They's have to suffer and/or die with limited medical attention in primitive conditions for a war no one will ever truly win.

In the Taliban example I was speaking only of Afghanistan, which would definitely fall to the Taliban, though it is possible the Taliban would capture more of the Middle East as well. And then try to spread it's borders further while at the same time cruelly oppressing their people.

The UN and NATO had little to no control of regimes like the Taliban before the US kicked them out of power; they'll have no or little control this time around as well. It's always the US that gets involved in unjust countries, and tries to keep them in check. No country really cares much about the UN or NATO. Without the US to support those two organizations, nothing would get done. Extremists don't care what some 'infidel' organization wants, especially when it encroaches on their religious beliefs. They'd just continue oppressing women, cutting off the limbs of thieves, and beheading homosexuals.

[Sugaree]

And who gets caught up in all those power struggles? People live in this battleground. Constant warring between different countries will end up being like the warring of different tribes in Africa-hundreds of thousands would be massacred. There would be utter lawlessness, rapes, murders, thievery, homelessness, starvation, new lows in poverty. Again, far FAR worse than there is now. Control of land would change hands every few days. Everyone there would live in constant fear. The damage to the Middle East would be unbelievable.

"no harm"??? Even if, as you seem to believe, civilians won't be harmed (which is ridiculous), the soldiers will be. Soldiers are people too, you know. Hundreds of thousands will be killed, more injured. They's have to suffer and/or die with limited medical attention in primitive conditions for a war no one will ever truly win.

In the Taliban example I was speaking only of Afghanistan, which would definitely fall to the Taliban, though it is possible the Taliban would capture more of the Middle East as well. And then try to spread it's borders further while at the same time cruelly oppressing their people.

The UN and NATO had little to no control of regimes like the Taliban before the US kicked them out of power; they'll have no or little control this time around as well. It's always the US that gets involved in unjust countries, and tries to keep them in check. No country really cares much about the UN or NATO. Without the US to support those two organizations, nothing would get done. Extremists don't care what some 'infidel' organization wants, especially when it encroaches on their religious beliefs. They'd just continue oppressing women, cutting off the limbs of thieves, and beheading homosexuals.


Can you not just sit back and let it play out? The area is a hopeless cause! Giving two shits about the Middle East is out of the question now. People have had enough of the two or three thousand years of fighting. It's best that we leave them to their own devices. Yes, people will die. Of course they're going to die; they live in a god damn war zone. Of course I feel bad for those people having to live there, but what more can be done? All of our efforts aren't even being met. The United States is country building Afghanistan. Get the troops out of the Middle East, close our air/ground bases there, and tell them "Sorry, we can't go on any longer". Yes they'll hate us for it, but we can't keep holding the Middle East's hand and guide it. There's only so much the world can do. If the Middle East is nothing more than a power struggle, so be it. It may be cruel and uncaring to you, but it is a necessary action to leave them as they are.

[Upintheair]

well Im not quite sure because my friends older brother is in the army and last time she heard from him he said he was "really excited because he didnt have to go on night watch because they dont have enough guns" I mean that is just ridiculous

[Iris]

Can you not just sit back and let it play out?

No. I am not ok with massacre.

The area is a hopeless cause! Giving two shits about the Middle East is out of the question now.

What are you talking about?? The countries the US invaded now have tentative democracies or are in the process of creating a functioning one. The economy is slowly beginning to recover. People are no longer brutally oppressed. If that happened to more countries in the Middle East everyone would be better off.

People have had enough of the two or three thousand years of fighting.

You think the fighting would end if we leave them to it? First they'll all kill each other and leave the Middle East a bloody wasteland. Then the people who are left will rule, and since these people will probably be extremist dictators, there will be endless suffering, occasional rebellions, constant turmoil. Again, land will change hands every few days. Men, women, children will all just become collateral damage, being murdered, abused and raped. The fighting will never end this way.

It's best that we leave them to their own devices. Yes, people will die. Of course they're going to die; they live in a god damn war zone.

No, it's far more than "people will die." It's millions of people will be massacred. Now the situation might not be great, but at least there isn't complete and utter lawlessness.

Of course I feel bad for those people having to live there, but what more can be done? All of our efforts aren't even being met. The United States is country building Afghanistan.

What is so bad with trying to rebuild Afghanistan? It's been for the betterment of the people there. They no longer live under tyranny. They are no longer cruelly oppressed. They have the ability to choose who'll create the laws and keep the peace. Obviously it's still a work in progress, but it is going somewhere.

Get the troops out of the Middle East, close our air/ground bases there, and tell them "Sorry, we can't go on any longer". Yes they'll hate us for it, but we can't keep holding the Middle East's hand and guide it. There's only so much the world can do. If the Middle East is nothing more than a power struggle, so be it. It may be cruel and uncaring to you, but it is a necessary action to leave them as they are.

The easy way and the right way are often two totally different things. Yes, it's annoying and frustrating that we're trying so hard to bring peace to this war ravaged land and they're responding so slowly. Yes, it's tempting to just throw up our hands and just give up. But at the end of the day that'll just make the situation worse, for everyone.

Also part of the point I'm making is that a move like this would not be beneficial to anyone. The threat the world would face during the fighting, when rogue, extremist groups gain and lose control would be enormous. Also we'd lose control of important resources. And there's be a huge flood of illegal immigration. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who often trade with the US would probably fall, without the US's help. Logically, it 1. wouldn't help the situation and 2. cause the rest of the world to suffer.

You can say "fine, let them all kill each other" while you're sitting comfortably in some nice little country far from the Middle East. What about the people there? You're giving them a death sentence. I myself am grateful for the US's intervention in wars, because without that I would not be alive today. If the US hadn't gone out and freed the concentration camps my grandmother would have died there (along with the est of her family, who were already murdered). I and my family would never been born. You don't have the right to deny all the people who will suffer their lives.

[Sugaree]

No. I am not ok with massacre.

Neither am I, but I'm not going to call for actions against it. You would probably say the same thing about the massacres in Rwanda some 20 years ago. You obviously care, and that's fine; but you're implying the United States has a responsibility to countries without a set standard.

What are you talking about?? The countries the US invaded now have tentative democracies or are in the process of creating a functioning one. The economy is slowly beginning to recover. People are no longer brutally oppressed. If that happened to more countries in the Middle East everyone would be better off.

The people in the Middle East say otherwise. They don't like how we're country building. We're changing something that they don't want to be changed. Why can you not accept that? If the people don't want us to occupy their territory, then just pull out and leave it up to them. We've taught them enough in the past 10 years that they can handle it for themselves.

You think the fighting would end if we leave them to it? First they'll all kill each other and leave the Middle East a bloody wasteland. Then the people who are left will rule, and since these people will probably be extremist dictators, there will be endless suffering, occasional rebellions, constant turmoil. Again, land will change hands every few days. Men, women, children will all just become collateral damage, being murdered, abused and raped. The fighting will never end this way.

First, I never said the fighting would end if we leave them alone. I never even implied it. I simply said that we should let them fight because it's been going on for thousands of years. Trying to be peace bearers to the Middle East has never been a good idea in the first place. Second, you're doing nothing more than describing the Middle East as it is now. It is still a large power struggle where civilians are the collateral damage. Stop being so redundant.

No, it's far more than "people will die." It's millions of people will be massacred. Now the situation might not be great, but at least there isn't complete and utter lawlessness.

Good Lord, you act like something like this has never happened in the history of the world.

What is so bad with trying to rebuild Afghanistan? It's been for the betterment of the people there. They no longer live under tyranny. They are no longer cruelly oppressed. They have the ability to choose who'll create the laws and keep the peace. Obviously it's still a work in progress, but it is going somewhere.

You know why trying to rebuild Afghanistan is bad? We had absolutely no right to just rear our ugly heads in and flip the damn country. It's a disgrace that people think this is a mostly good idea when they fail to acknowledge that we invaded the country with an unclear objective. Afghanistan could have been easily left alone when we went into the Middle East, but we took it anyway. Country building should not be the purpose when the United States invades another country. The purpose should either be for war against the country or to help the country when it asks for our assistance.

The easy way and the right way are often two totally different things. Yes, it's annoying and frustrating that we're trying so hard to bring peace to this war ravaged land and they're responding so slowly. Yes, it's tempting to just throw up our hands and just give up. But at the end of the day that'll just make the situation worse, for everyone.

How is it going to make the situation worse for everyone? I highly doubt that 1/4th of the United States would be affected by it. Sure, maybe the people of Afghanistan will be affected. Who knows for sure? The reason that country building never works is because there are going to be many factions opposed to you who will make you work harder than you need to be successful. Terrorist cells and locals are making this incredibly hard, terrorist cells even more so. We need to stop putting our noses into every other country's affairs. It wasn't our place to go into Afghanistan in the first place, yet we're there anyway.

Also part of the point I'm making is that a move like this would not be beneficial to anyone. The threat the world would face during the fighting, when rogue, extremist groups gain and lose control would be enormous. Also we'd lose control of important resources. And there's be a huge flood of illegal immigration. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who often trade with the US would probably fall, without the US's help. Logically, it 1. wouldn't help the situation and 2. cause the rest of the world to suffer.

1. The United States has plenty of oil reserves that are growing day by day. The only reason we trade with the Middle Eastern countries for their oil is because it's cheaper.

2. A huge flood of illegal immigration you say? Oh by the Constitution, say it isn't so!

3. Countries like Saudi Arabia are not dependent on our help. We are dependent on them. Without Saudi Arabia, we would lose oil. It isn't the other way around.

You can say "fine, let them all kill each other" while you're sitting comfortably in some nice little country far from the Middle East. What about the people there? You're giving them a death sentence. I myself am grateful for the US's intervention in wars, because without that I would not be alive today. If the US hadn't gone out and freed the concentration camps my grandmother would have died there (along with the est of her family, who were already murdered). I and my family would never been born. You don't have the right to deny all the people who will suffer their lives.

For starters, I'm giving no one a death sentence. It's a death sentence just to go over to the Middle East. The people there have no other choice. What do you want them to do? Immigrate to another country that probably won't accept them? That's their only other option if they want out of that hell hole. If they can do it, I strongly support that they move out of their respective country and into another. United States intervention in wars has only been needed a few times. Those few times were essential in stopping major powers from controlling the areas of Europe and North Africa. Right now, our intervention is only needed when a truly serious threat arises. There have been no serious threats since the USSR. And don't say that North Korea or China is a threat, because they keep themselves under tight watch. My great-grandparents immigrated from Poland to here after escaping from a concentration camp. I wouldn't be here either had they not fled for their lives. Really, you aren't that special. Be proud if you want, but you portray an unwarranted self importance that is doing you no good.

[Iris]

Neither am I, but I'm not going to call for actions against it. You would probably say the same thing about the massacres in Rwanda some 20 years ago. You obviously care, and that's fine; but you're implying the United States has a responsibility to countries without a set standard.

If you're not going to call for action against it then you are ok with it. No one who is against massacre would just sit back and watch it happen. And yes, the US, and every other country in the world that puts value in human life, should be getting involved. Keep in mind that that doesn't necessarily mean through war.



The people in the Middle East say otherwise. They don't like how we're country building. We're changing something that they don't want to be changed. Why can you not accept that? If the people don't want us to occupy their territory, then just pull out and leave it up to them. We've taught them enough in the past 10 years that they can handle it for themselves.

We changed the ruling (oppressive) government. The reason the people in the Middle East hate the US is because the invasion led to war (obviously), which wasn't beneficial. Just because the attitude hasn't changed doesn't mean that it would be better to leave them alone. All they know right now is constant turmoil, fed by the US's occupation and the following terrorist attacks. They haven't been able to reap the benefits of freedom and democracy yet. And for the record the US has begun to pull out.

First, I never said the fighting would end if we leave them alone. I never even implied it. I simply said that we should let them fight because it's been going on for thousands of years. Trying to be peace bearers to the Middle East has never been a good idea in the first place. Second, you're doing nothing more than describing the Middle East as it is now. It is still a large power struggle where civilians are the collateral damage. Stop being so redundant.

Just letting them fight till the end of time isn't a solution either. And unfortunately, since the Middle East can't seem to do it on their own, someone has to try and create peace. Leaving people alone in their suffering is not ok. It's cruel. And I'm trying to stress how the situation will be 10 times worse if we just let it alone. If that comes across as redundant, then so be it.

Good Lord, you act like something like this has never happened in the history of the world.

How does that make it alright?? Maybe it's because it's happened before that I'm so repulsed by the idea. Maybe reading and hearing and seeing the pain and suffering is making me so stubborn to do everything in my power to not let it happen again. Why do you make it sound like it's a bad thing that I care about the suffering of others?

You know why trying to rebuild Afghanistan is bad? We had absolutely no right to just rear our ugly heads in and flip the damn country. It's a disgrace that people think this is a mostly good idea when they fail to acknowledge that we invaded the country with an unclear objective. Afghanistan could have been easily left alone when we went into the Middle East, but we took it anyway. Country building should not be the purpose when the United States invades another country. The purpose should either be for war against the country or to help the country when it asks for our assistance.

A very large part of the invasion of Afghanistan was because of the threat it posed to the US, as it harbored terrorists. If you're country is threatened, you defend it. But the US didn't just leave the country in shambles, it set up a democratic government. People could now vote. Who was against that?? Other than Taliban supporters, of course. The US isn't forcing it's culture or anything like that on the country. It's only doing things that will ultimately be beneficial to Afghanistan.

http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brasiapacificra/155.php?lb=bras&pnt=155&nid=&id= -it seems that the vast majority of Afghanistan supported the US's involvement.

How is it going to make the situation worse for everyone? I highly doubt that 1/4th of the United States would be affected by it. Sure, maybe the people of Afghanistan will be affected. Who knows for sure? The reason that country building never works is because there are going to be many factions opposed to you who will make you work harder than you need to be successful. Terrorist cells and locals are making this incredibly hard, terrorist cells even more so. We need to stop putting our noses into every other country's affairs. It wasn't our place to go into Afghanistan in the first place, yet we're there anyway.

It'll be worse for Afghanistan and countries around it, as all wars are detrimental that way. And something as large as a huge war outbreak in the middle east will affect trade, and will allow terrorism to flourish. Also check out the above link about how the Afghans approve of the US's actions. When human rights are abused as horribly as in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, it is perfectly justified to try and stop it.

1. The United States has plenty of oil reserves that are growing day by day. The only reason we trade with the Middle Eastern countries for their oil is because it's cheaper.
2. A huge flood of illegal immigration you say? Oh by the Constitution, say it isn't so!
3. Countries like Saudi Arabia are not dependent on our help. We are dependent on them. Without Saudi Arabia, we would lose oil. It isn't the other way around.

1. Honestly that's a reasonable reason to trade with them. Oil prices would still skyrocket if Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries were in the wrong hands.

2. Mock it if you want to; it's still a legitimate reason.

3. I was speaking in terms of the military.

For starters, I'm giving no one a death sentence. It's a death sentence just to go over to the Middle East. The people there have no other choice. What do you want them to do? Immigrate to another country that probably won't accept them? That's their only other option if they want out of that hell hole. If they can do it, I strongly support that they move out of their respective country and into another. United States intervention in wars has only been needed a few times. Those few times were essential in stopping major powers from controlling the areas of Europe and North Africa. Right now, our intervention is only needed when a truly serious threat arises. There have been no serious threats since the USSR. And don't say that North Korea or China is a threat, because they keep themselves under tight watch. My great-grandparents immigrated from Poland to here after escaping from a concentration camp. I wouldn't be here either had they not fled for their lives. Really, you aren't that special. Be proud if you want, but you portray an unwarranted self importance that is doing you no good.

Leaving the people to die while their worlds' are shattered by opposing militarys is a death sentence. It's not about what I want them to do, but what I want us to do. You can't expect them to perform a mass exodus while the different sides war. We have to do whatever we can to make sure a war like the one you're so supportive of never happens. No one is denying that in order to attempt to bring about peace there'll be casualties. The point is to limit those casualties as much as possible. That's where the US plays a part.

Lastly, I usually don't let insults during debates get to me, but to suggest I feel "self-important" to be the grandchild of a holocaust survivor is quite hurtful. I was trying to prove a point. That's it. If it sounded snotty or stuck up, it wasn't meant to. But really, you're comment was uncalled for.

[Ben Michael]

How would we be lazy? Also, universal healthcare would help the people more than a strong military would. Don't see why anybody would be opposed to that. I bet you don't have a legit reason.

Actually I do, one we don't need higher taxes, two have you not seen how it's screwed Britain and Canada, they're people that can't access a cancer doctor because of the wait and they die. There is a lack of medical professionals because the government there doesn't pay as well as in America so countless doctors are coming here. The overall system seems nice but it is not going to work and will probably be repealed before it goes fully active in 2014. Not to mention that it also screws insurance companies.

[Korashk]

Ok if we didn't upkeep a strong military we would be more lazy than we are now and we'd be an easy target to any country and if you havent noticed we could go to war with N. Korea or China at any moment so we need to be strong and we're kind of at war now so we may spend a bit more on that, what we dont need is universal health care.

Holy shit, use punctuation. Anyways:

What we have now is above and beyond a "strong military". Way over half of the defense budget is spent on aggressive foreign military operations and maintaining the Military Industrial Complex (which serves no purpose). Be realistic, the US is at absolutely no risk from any kind of foreign force.

I say aggressive military action mainly because the "wars" we're currently engaged in posed no threat to the US at all. Never did.

[Ben Michael]

Lol sorry

[SosbanFach]

There is a lack of medical professionals because the government there doesn't pay as well as in America so countless doctors are coming here.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Sorry to say that, but to be an NHS medical doctor or surgeon here:
a) pays well above the average wage
b) is quite a sought after job, by my understanding.

I don't know what source you used for this piece of information, but if you'll forgive me, it's somewhat unreliable. Both of my parents work for the NHS.

[dontcare97]

The US was always the one all the other countries ran to for help. Why? We were the biggest, strongest kid on the playground and if someone came crying to us of a bully, we put it out. This method isn't bad in theory. As a stronger, devolved country we should help the weaker ones when needed, that's not what we did in the middle east.

Helping the people who need it most wasn't the prime objection, it was to annihilation terrorist threats that happened to be bullying other people. People are to willing to throw money at the military, not knowing what that money was going to. Case and point, in the 1980's we funded a rebellion group to fight against our Soviet enemies out of the middle east. We trained them and gave them weapons and money to perform missions. The group we trained? The Taliban. We fueled this group with short sighted goals which ultimately came back to bite us in the ass.

Sometimes the US does need to step in when we have the power to stop innocent lives from being destroyed. Just because it's on the other side of the globe, we ignore it? Little kids are getting blown to bets by troops in Libya. while other times the US has to back off like when the newly freed Egyptian people didn't wan't an America to lead their country.
Once we find the right balance of helping and stepping back, the US military will have my 100% support. Until then, they are just going to throw money at things with out looking into the future. Being selfish and overprotective. Right now, America is just as bad as the people starting wars.

[Spock]

yeah but if u cut milatary spending and the world breaks in to WW3 then there will be no need for education because every elligible person will be fighting

[Korashk]

yeah but if u cut milatary spending and the world breaks in to WW3 then there will be no need for education because every elligible person will be fighting
Please be kidding.

[Angel Androgynous]

yeah but if u cut milatary spending and the world breaks in to WW3 then there will be no need for education because every elligible person will be fighting

Lolwut? ._.


Oh, don't you worry about that. If we cut a little military spending, and spend more money on education and healthcare, when world war 3 breaks out [-]lolnever[/-], we can be smart and healthy...and have a military! :yeah:

[Awesome]

yeah but if u cut milatary spending and the world breaks in to WW3 then there will be no need for education because every elligible person will be fighting

We have plenty of allies and our military is already very well trained and ahead in technology.

[Genghis Khan]

We have plenty of allies and our military is already very well trained and ahead in technology.

Hence America should spend its neverending wealth on something else.

[dnlsmth]

WW# will never break out because of nuclear weapons and the fear that they create. noone is would be willing to start that. but anyway. im from Australia and i really feel sorry for u americans. u are in such a bad state it is not even funny. with the military spending?? well there is no doubt that they need to cut down on that however pulling out of the middle east is not such a good idea as it would destabilize the oil supply for the whole world basically. i love it how u are all obsessed with the health care and education thing. its hilarious. UR GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE ANY MONEY. see u do realise that cutting on spending for military would not create room in the budget for health and stuff. you actually basically cant even service ur debt.

[Schizothemia]

yeah but if u cut milatary spending and the world breaks in to WW3 then there will be no need for education because every elligible person will be fighting
It's this type of mindset that is fucking us over in the first place. This kind of fear and paranoia is what is feeding the military industrial complex this country has and it's making our wealth go down the toilet because of unrealistic "what ifs." That's like saying: "What if the sun goes supernova tomorrow? Spending money on education wouldn't be needed because every eligible person will be dead."

[Neptune]

I don't think so. If you reduce spending on the military, the military will just stop accepting soldiers and spend that money on military development. The jobs are needed, and, the military provides jobs. It's a way out for many people. Let's not ruin that.

[Marky]

I agree on the spend a little more on education and the health but without a strong military we would not result to much. We are not in good standings with China and honestly if u really care about the ecucation speak to ur school board of trustees. In order for schools to get more money they rely on taxes, hometaxes to be infact. for property taxes to go up means that the school gets more money. But as americans we want things cheap SO most people will vote against raising taxes wich doesnt allow the school to get more money. Even with tough times u cant expect the government to bail everybody out constently. People will have to work harder to make more money to pay more taxes to better the education system

And FYI im not talking random stuff. My Parent works for my school district and our area recently aprroved a bond to raise property taxes.

[The Crusader]

No, the government is spending too much money supporting bums, drug addicts and illegal aliens.

[deadpie]

No, the government is spending too much money supporting bums, drug addicts and illegal aliens.

Lol, typical conservative that knows nothing about anything. They're not supporting bums and drug addicts. DRUG ADDICTS? Where are you coming from? Have you heard the useless war on drugs? They're wasting money ruining people's lives who AREN'T criminals and most of those addicts aren't going to kill people. Also, people don't need a life sentence for marijuana. That shit actually happens here in the US. It's fucking pathetic.

Yes the Government is spending too much money on wars, because the US has to say, "Look how big our fucking dick is! Yeah, killing people! We're so badass!"

Get bankrupt, fuck off and die America OR fix your shit before it's too late.

[Efflorescence]

Yes the Government is spending too much money on wars, because the US has to say, "Look how big our fucking dick is! Yeah, killing people! We're so badass!"

Get bankrupt, fuck off and die America OR fix your shit before it's too late.

How very 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' of you lol