The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (5 comments)

  1. Does it really save more lives that it KILLS?
    I’m anti-obama, but I’m also against the war monger IMPERIALISTS (Bush/Romney/etc) who are puppets of the Elite who want to own the world so they can STEAL the wealth of other countries. Obama is for FASCISM whereby there is a one-world government (New World Order) which sounds good until you think how it would be just one more layer of government to make getting anything done less likely and more passing of the buck. The War Mongers are FASCISM whereby the corporations run the governmentS and then run the world.
    I’m for what Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are for, a military for DEFENSE and not OFFENSE!

    1. Okay. I’ll play.

      1. Quantifying the number of direct and indirect casualties of wars with US military participation is reasonably straightforward. Quantifying the number of lives saved or protected through military action, intervention, or presence is a much more complex process. And will essentially boil down to whether or not you like/respect the military. Which you don’t.

      2. Imperialism is the creation of an empire, where one nation subjugates, oppresses, conquers, colonizes, or dominates other nations/territories. Please identify the last war of conquest undertaken by the United States, which resulted in actual, legal, official expansion of US sovereign soil.

      3. Who are these Elite? Do they have names? Where do they exist? How do you identify them? If the politicans/war mongers are the public face puppets, who pulls the strings? It’s remarkably easy to accuse a faceless, nameless ‘They’ as some shadowy mastermind.

      4. Steal the wealth. Which countries are demonstrably poorer because of their interactions with the United States? Or, more specifically, which countries would be both prosperous and peaceful in the absence of US involvement/presence?

      5. Fascism is not one world government.

      6. One world government is not one more layer of government.

      7. Warmongers are not fascists. Politicians who authorize the use of military force, or who sign declarations of war, are not necessarily warmongers. Warmongers are those who eagerly push for war, for the sake of war. If you do not believe there is ever a just cause for waging war, then anyone who speaks of some necessity of war will appear to be a warmonger.

      8. Fascism is not government run by corporations. That is plutocracy, or corporatism, or even syndicalism.

      9. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul make good arguments for redefining the role of the US military in the world. I would be surprised if those arguments included assertions of New World Order or Fascism or mysterious Elite.

      1. So, you want to PRETEND you’re playing? Okay.
        I respect he military but NOT those who control the military. If you want to educate yourself on the subject, read up on General Smedley Butler and how he said it was all a scam by the Elite.
        Who are the Elite? Well, if you read up on Smedley Butler, you can read who wanted to TAKE OVER the USA back then, with HIM chosen to lead the way.
        If you don’t believe that imperialism has happened, you need to educate yourself in that realm, too. I saw a nice documentary of the folks in Indonesia telling how the IMF/World Bank/etc (the money arm of the Elite) “loaned” their country money to “industrialize” them, the money mainly went to the corrupt “leaders”, the country had NO MARKET for what they were “helped” to be good at making, and thus THE PEOPLE were essentially slaves to the Elites to pay back the debt.
        There are two versions of the Fascist New World Order (obama’s version or romney’s, both of which are new concoctions and not like old forms). Obama’s is one where BIG government rules the peasants while an Elite few live lavish lives. Romney’s version (though he’s too ignorant to know how he’s helping go in that direction) is that the Corporations will run “government” so there is an Elite core (kind of like congress now) who live lavish lives and rule over the peasants.

  2. we current spend more for national defense that we take in – in income taxes.

    we spend more on the military than the next 10 countries combined including Russia and China.

    what percent of how much money we take – in in taxes should we be spending on National Defense?

    Don’t talk about GDP. Talk about how much we take in – in taxes because that’s what we have to spend.

    how much of our tax revenues should go to National Defense?

    Keep in mind that we are now at the cusp of having more military retirees (receiving pension and health care benefits) than we have active duty – and the numbers only get worse as more and more military people retiree.

    How much can we really afford?

    Ronald Reagan got the USSR to spend more than it could afford and it essentially broke up that country.

    Can we do the same thing to ourselves?

  3. For the life of me, I don’t understand the author’s perjorative use of the word “isolationist.” North Korea is run by isolationists. But would the author really go so far as to say that the leaders of Germany, Poland, Brazil, Ireland, Portugal, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, India and Australia are “isolationists” simply because they don’t have foreign military bases in every corner of the world? Of course not. Indeed, most of these nations have substantial trade surpluses from doing so much business outside their borders.

    I also chuckle at the author’s binary option of either continuing to fund massive foreign military operations now or face the prospect of a full scale war against China, or some other vague and undefined threat. First, the author ignores the obvious fact that China benefits from the United States consumer who buys Chinese products needed to keep its economy running. Second, if China wanted to harm the US, it doesn’t even need a single gun, ship or soldier. All that it has to do is start liquidating its $1.2 trillion of US Treasury bonds in a fire sale. Interest rates on US debt would immediately skyrocket to crippling levels – even if the interest rate rose to the historical average rate of 5%, we would still have to pay $1 trillion in annual interest payments by 2016. As the interest rates continued to rise, it would jeopardize our ability to meet our nation’s other financial commitments, thus prompting even higher interest rates, and so goes the death spiral from there. Should that happen, we’ll be lucky if we can even afford a standing military. And that will be the least of our troubles.

    Compared to the very real economic damage China could unleash on us at any time, the speculative risks posed by China’s one (1) old, decommissioned Soviet aircraft carrier are downright laughable.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content