Our linkfest taking you to sites of varying opinions. Links do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
Conservatives Continue To Make Race The Issue in Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation battle. Some thoughts from law...

Our linkfest taking you to sites of varying opinions. Links do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
Conservatives Continue To Make Race The Issue in Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation battle. Some thoughts from law...

Yes, there is, and I'm willing to discuss what this might be. Unfortunately, I don't hear much talk about it around here.

Too big? Too expensive?; Why? And relative to what, that we spend almost 600 bil per and that's more than the next 5 guys combined? That's dollar sign eye-candy, not a valid threat / capabilities comparison.

I'm only "disappointed" that we aren't using military power when diplomacy has clearly run it's course and the bad case de jour will not improve with age. In the case of N.K. and Iran, having no good choices is not an excuse for not choosing.

We are entering a period of drastically constrained circumstances, I get that. Let's identify the threats, procure the required capabilities and then do the hard work required to cut what is no longer needed. Unfortunately, we need a lot.

Oh, and until "...the jealous, the pussies, and of course our country's own America-haters" sack up and articulate a substantive alternative (other than the predictable snark, ad hominem, and condescension), there will continue to be "predictable descriptions."

But surely there is a middle-ground? Or does everyone who disagrees with the size and expense of our military fall into one of those three categories? In regards to the alternatives...obviously when it comes to countries like North Korea and Iran, we can use military force, use diplomacy, or do nothing...poor dear, I would imagine that it disappoints you that we aren't using that first option...

'rats as a rule are not noted for willingness to use "hard power" to reinforce U.S. interests.

Awww...what a shame that the "'rats" aren't as bloodthirsty as you'd like...the term "domestic high chair pounders" was used earlier...that term would seem to perfectly fit those who blunder around whining (dare I say in a predictable fashion) about how the military option is so underutilized...why, it's amazing our country still exists since we seem to be so loathe to use our shiny war toys...

The much vaunted, if not overvalued, "soft power" is only possible through the hard power that the hundreds of billions in annual defense spending buys.

Well, that and a reputation for using it.
If this goes back to a question that was thrust at me some time ago about why North Korea would be at all concerned about the politics and the United States. 'rats as a rule are not noted for willingness to use "hard power" to reinforce U.S. interests.

In a way, it's all China's money, isn't it?

Oh, and until "...the jealous, the pussies, and of course our country's own America-haters" sack up and articulate a substantive alternative (other than the predictable snark, ad hominem, and condescension), there will continue to be "predictable descriptions."

...our occasional misapplication of that power not withstanding.

Yeah, like Iraq...it's nice to see our money (well, actually, China's money, but I digress) so well spent...

You're spot on with that comment.

In my initial post on this subject, I failed to bring this out and chose to highlight other realities ("No one else has our responsibilities nor our capabilities."). OTOH, if you're an opponent of defense spending, it's all about the benjamins. That other stuff: capabilities, responsibilities and the diplomatic leveraging of "hard" power", that's only so much static.

The much vaunted, if not overvalued, "soft power" is only possible through the hard power that the hundreds of billions in annual defense spending buys. We get a lot of people's attention because we can both talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk, our occasional misapplication of that power not withstanding.

Some so-called "rising powers", Europe's impotent, though highly-opinionated mandarins, and our domestic high chair pounders resent us for this.

It means that it's not an apple to apple comparison, so therefore, it leads to inaccurate or "unreliable" conclusions. I insist, capabilities are a better metric; what do you get for your 600 billion?

Be sure to add the psychological (Foreign policy) value to your measurement of what do you get for the 600 billion. Some (obviously) will take that value as a negative. I'm not among them.

"In 2009, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2008 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$105 and US$150 billion."

I'm not going to do the math for you on this one. Hint: It's more than 10 percent of what we spend.

BTW, I had a drink and a talk with a PLAN officer while in Shanghai a few years back. In the course of our conversation, we did a back of the cocktail napkin (literally) purchasing power parity comparison on military pay. We came to the conclusion that U.S. troops, on average, earn about 20x more than PRC troops (conscription vs AVF has a lot to do with this). Because my chinese "friend" was a mid-grade officer, the difference was only about 10x. More drinks were required in order for him to save face.

"...(N)or "unreliable" (what does that even mean?)."

It means that it's not an apple to apple comparison, so therefore, it leads to inaccurate or "unreliable" conclusions. I insist, capabilities are a better metric; what do you get for your 600 billion?

A demonstrably unreliable, if not false, metric. No one else has our responsibilities nor our capabilities.

Our "responsibilities" and "capabilities" have nothing to do with the question of whether we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military assets, a fact which is neither false nor "unreliable" (what does that even mean?).

it's all in black and white here. The US spends 600 billion while the rest of the world combined spends 500 billion (stats from 2004). 600 is in fact more than 500.

China, despite having 4x our population and trying to aggressively modernize their military spends 1/10 what we do.

Right-wing paranoid delusions...what evidence do you have to back up this ridiculous assertion...

Heh... you did read all of that, right?

Umm, not really...the person today who would probably be most like Ike would be Colin Powell and he wouldn't have to worry about being called Hitler by anyone, but he would be called some nasty things by people like you...

Nah. RINO is about the extent of it. But I do seem to recall the left making some very interesting noises just after 9/11 about him. Seems to me I wrote something to that point at the time. I'll have to see if it's still online.