1. I think it terribly hypocritical for the left to criticize the wars merely on cost considerations. After all, there are many line items in the budget that cost more. Specifically SS, Medicare. For the details on that go to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
and see table 5.1 on page 104. We are projected to spend $558 billion on Medicare alone and $876 billion on SS alone, next year.
a) The historic approach the US has taken in these situations is to win at any cost. So from that perspective, once the decision was made to go in, cost should not be relevant - it certainly wasn't regarding the rebuilding of Germany & Japan.
2. If you want to criticize the policy, you could have traction there. Perhaps the US should have known better after watching the Soviets withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would only posit in return that the "model" for our invasion seemed to be Germany & Japan, and obviously that hasn't turned out the same way.
3. As to the idea that we are over-spending regarding the threat of AQ, I tend to agree. As the two young men in Boston showed, terrorizing a city isn't really that hard, despite millions spent on security for that marathon. Most of the tens of billions the US spends on anti-terrorism seems to be for show and is bogged down in political correctness - The Obama Administration removed all references to Islam from terror training materials. (https://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html)
which is absurd.
0
A couple of thoughts darkhorse:
1. I think it terribly hypocritical for the left to criticize the wars merely on cost considerations. After all, there are many line items in the budget that cost more. Specifically SS, Medicare. For the details on that go to: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
and see table 5.1 on page 104. We are projected to spend $558 billion on Medicare alone and $876 billion on SS alone, next year.
a) The historic approach the US has taken in these situations is to win at any cost. So from that perspective, once the decision was made to go in, cost should not be relevant - it certainly wasn't regarding the rebuilding of Germany & Japan.
2. If you want to criticize the policy, you could have traction there. Perhaps the US should have known better after watching the Soviets withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would only posit in return that the "model" for our invasion seemed to be Germany & Japan, and obviously that hasn't turned out the same way.
3. As to the idea that we are over-spending regarding the threat of AQ, I tend to agree. As the two young men in Boston showed, terrorizing a city isn't really that hard, despite millions spent on security for that marathon. Most of the tens of billions the US spends on anti-terrorism seems to be for show and is bogged down in political correctness - The Obama Administration removed all references to Islam from terror training materials. (https://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html)
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
