Military Spending is more important than Entitlement Spending

[Wonkish1]

Well just to point out a pretty good portion of Military spending is simultaneously entitlement spending. Not saying it should be removed, but just pointing there is considerable overlap.

GI Bill, VA, retiree pensions, retiree health benefits, etc. and this does represent a decent chunk of spending on defense, military, and veterans.


The point is that you wont be able to cut one or the other. You're eventually going to have to cut a lot from both. And if you are actually caring about the issue you will do it soon and do it for future retirees so you don't have to screw people over down the road.

[Wonkish1]

Now we're basically stuck in a number of countries that I don't see a way out of. I'd sure like to see it be short-term, but when is it really going to change? Who is really going to change it?

I see a way out of Iraq. The war is practically won. The country is now safer then Brazil and the Olympics are going there.

[Wonkish1]

Now we're basically stuck in a number of countries that I don't see a way out of. I'd sure like to see it be short-term, but when is it really going to change? Who is really going to change it?

I see a way out of Iraq. The war is practically won. The country is now safer then Brazil and the Olympics are going there.

Afghanistan used to be pretty safe, too. Japan are Germany are very safe. There certainly are logical ways out, but there are no real ways out. Politics forbid that. There are lot of things that should and easily could be done by the US that aren't and won't be for reasons with no basis in sensibility or reality.

Well expensive combat operations in Iraq are over. Unless the United States actually tries to cutback recruitment you have to base them somewhere. And it really doesn't matter if that is in the US or outside of the US except outside the US comes with more strategic benefits. At least that is what I'm referring to in the cases of Japan and Germany. If the same thing were to happen in Iraq it is really a non issue. All that matters is that costly operations cease.

If you want to look into policy that attempts to cutback on military personnel in general, I may be open to it as a way of cost containment. But unless your willing to back that then it really matters little if we base people in Georgia or Okinawa.

[Wonkish1]

Well, that was the position of Democrats at one time.

A position which the party has since corrected.

Unless they have large military installations in their districts.

Another reason why overseas bases are preferable over domestic ones.

[Wonkish1]

I see a way out of Iraq. The war is practically won. The country is now safer then Brazil and the Olympics are going there.

Good joke

What you don't think so? Iraq is pretty damn safe today. I would feel a lot safer as an Iraqi in most parts of Iraq then a Brazilian in the Favellas.

And if you compare it to Mexico its not even close. Granted as a white American I feel safer in Mexico than I even do in certain parts of the US, but if I were a Mexican I would be pretty scared anytime I went out. If I were an Iraqi I wouldn't be too concerned going out in Iraq.

[Wonkish1]

And if you compare it to Mexico its not even close. Granted as a white American I feel safer in Mexico than I even do in certain parts of the US, but if I were a Mexican I would be pretty scared anytime I went out. If I were an Iraqi I wouldn't be too concerned going out in Iraq.

You are completely ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Iraq is at the very bottom of the peace index, the second least peaceful country in the world. Mexico and Brazil, while dangerous, are not even in the bottom 20%. Brazil is about average, and has improved in recent years, while Mexico is more dangerous than Brazil, and has become more dangerous in recent years. Iraq has actually become more dangerous over time. Look at measures besides U.S. military deaths and you'd see that.

Do you know anyone in Mexico or Brazil? Have you visited either country? I have lived in Mexico and have many friends there, and also in Brazil. People there live their lives as normal. Yes there is troubling violence, but it comes nowhere near Iraq.

Crazy that you think Iraq is a peaceful country. It's only kept out of the least peaceful spot by Somalia. It beats Sudan, North Korea and Afghanistan.

You really like to embarrass yourself don't you? Global Peace Index takes into account "friendliness towards neighbors", "expenditure on military", "number of police and security", etc. That is just stupid.

The fact is that civilian deaths are down to about 140 a month for the entire country. That is lower than certain states in the United States(although the presence of other crime in Iraq I wouldn't call Iraq "safer").

Here is a link to actual homicide rates in the world.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/homicide-rates

and here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc

Here are the 10 most dangerous cities in the world according to one source
http://urbantitan.com/10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world-in-2011/
and a different one
http://laikepo.blogspot.com/2011/01/top-10-world-most-dangerous-cities.html

Man you don't like making yourself look good do you?



Edit: To answer your question. I have spent a decent amount of time visiting Mexico even recently. I do feel extremely safe in Mexico(maybe not as much in the border towns) as a white American. I probably would be a lot more nervous travelling to Mexico if I was a Latino.

[Wonkish1]

Just as an FYI, the reason that Afghanistan and Irag are "unsafe" today is in no small measure due to American foreign policy during the Cold War.

Partially true in the case of Afghanistan, but not really true in the case of Iraq. Granted there was the Iran/Iraq war, but I really don't understand how that the absence of our tiny involvement would have changed anything.

[Wonkish1]

I want to see everything cut. Defense comes first for cuts though.

Well they are coming first. When no agreement comes out of the super committee automatic cuts are triggered which are shouldered almost completely by defense. And they are a very sizable chunk, more than anything the left has agreed to on any of their spending priorities combined.

But you can expect the ones that don't just ignore that all together to forget it the next day anyway. When more spending cuts need to occur not long after the automatic ones take effect we'll be back to "the military should get almost all of the cuts". Further, demonstrating that the left NEVER is willing to compromise.

[Wonkish1]

It is really out of necessity.  Supplying so many soldiers in the field overseas is an expensive and can be a very dangerous proposition.  Basing soldiers in the US is cheaper because of supply chain factors. Iraq is stable-ish so there is really little need for large #'s of soldiers.  We also can always park a carrier group in the Gulf to keep Iran honest.

In Afghanistan I would think we will certainly keep some airbases and protection elements so that we can keep pressure on terrorist elements across the border in Pakistan.

Long term permanent bases in other countries like in Japan and Germany really don't cost much more than domestic bases do. Furthermore, they offer benefits like allowing us to scramble jets in an emergency a lot faster and easier, refueling planes can be left there, and the big one-large military hospitals can be there cutting down on the time in the air for seriously wounded soldiers needing specialist treatment. If they decide to leave 10,000 soldiers in Iraq in a permanent installation it wouldn't really be any more costly than leaving soldiers in a permanent installation anywhere else.

Although it appears that the US government as of now is sticking to the idea that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq.