Cost of US wars since 9/11? At least $3.7 trillion, study finds

I’ll move on to address more of that chart later this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

First, I am curious what the first thing that occurred to you was, when looking at that twelve year chart?

Will you tell me?

That we spend way too much on defense. Soon to be even more, if/when these two additional divisions are authorized to be added to the Army.

We’re discussing the outlays, you have addressed what the blue stands for, and I’d appreciate it if you would address those figures.

What do you note of the green, blue, and red spending? What stands out about that chart immediately?

I’m not playing twenty questions. Say what you want to say, or else admit that military spending on the GWOT far exceeds $1.2 trillion.

Numer one, the number in question is $1.45 trillion, not $1.2, so peddle faster.

Take a look at those numbers Mr. Credible, and tell me why there was no increase figured into the military budget for twelve fricken years.

That didn’t occur to the bright guy that’s trying to set us straight? Sheesh.

BTW, I asked one question, not 20. You can’t even get that right.

Since you addressed the new divisions, and the additional costs, I’ll address it too.

If you know anything about the military at all, you know that we used to have a two theater military preparedness level. Under Bill Clinton our military was allowed to slip to the point where we only had a one theater level of preparedness.

Clinton didn’t bother to make that official. When George Bush came into office, we were hoping he would correct that. He didn’t. He just made it official. If we’re adding two divisions right now under Obama, it’s rubbing bleach on the open wound of Conservatives who were angry to see our military shrinking significantly under Clinton/Bush.

That you don’t express an awareness of this, and are carping on the cost of adding two new division displays either a lack of knowledge on this subject matter, or an attempt to blow smoke hoping nobody will notice.

FAIL!

Are you arguing that government spending should steadily increase over time? When conservatives talk about returning spending to pre-2008 or pre-2001 levels, is the military magically exempt from that?

Perhaps you’re arguing that inflation would cause military spending to double in ten years?

You’re still not making an argument, you’re just making sidelong comments without directly saying what you think is wrong with the numbers I posted.

Let me ask you some direct questions and see if you can answer them. What reason that doesn’t involve the war on terror caused military spending to go from 300B to 500B in 8 years?

BTW, it’s pedal, not peddle. As in backpedal.

If you know anything about the military at all, you know that we used to have a two theater military preparedness level.

And before that we had a zero theater military preparedness level. Which somehow got us from 1800 to 1940.

That you don’t express an awareness of this, and are carping on the cost of adding two new division displays either a lack of knowledge on this subject matter, or an attempt to blow smoke hoping nobody will notice.

Neither. I just happen to be an economic conservative who realizes that the United States cannot afford to maintain the current bloated size of the military.

The only reason we have/"need" the current size of the military is so that we never have to declare war. That way, there's no draft, ever, and the President can just 'war powers' and 'limited kinetic action' all over the place. This keeps Joe Schmoe Average American from being pissed off because he can keep watching American Idol while his country's leadership pisses away his money, his children's money, his grandchildren's money, and his fellow Americans' lives into the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet.

It's over. 1) We can't afford to do that anymore, 2) It's arguably unconstitutional and certainly against the intent of the Founding Fathers, and 3) the whole idea of being 'ready to fight in two theaters' is based on mobilizing, fighting a total war and pulling out when the other side surrenders. It's not 1950 anymore. Wars don't end. They go on forever, and nobody wins.

Fighting a counter insurgent war in two theaters in 2011 means keeping your Soldiers there for a decade. We simply cannot do that again.

Are you arguing that government spending should steadily increase over time? Costs for everything increase over time. If the government is still going to provide the service, then it will cost more to do it. That really is a side issue, but it's true. Should those other services be the government's perview? In most instances no. Why are you trying to use subterfuge here? This is B.S. and you know it. If you don't, and you sure don't seem to, that reflects on you, not me. To figure in no inflation effects at all for 12 years, is asinine.

When conservatives talk about returning spending to pre-2008 or pre-2001 levels, is the military magically exempt from that? Evidently you don't remember the many base closings in the 1990s. You don't remember the F22 cancellation. In fact, your arguments here are displayed all over Democrat Underground and similar sites. "YOU CONSERVATIVES TALK A BIG GAME, BUT YOUR PET PROJECTS ARE IMMUNE AND YOU KNOW IT!" Here you are on a Conservatie forum, using the exact same inellectual dishonesties. The military is not discretionary spending. It's to protect our nation and the people that live in it.

Perhaps you’re arguing that inflation would cause military spending to double in ten (TWELVE) years? Here's the break down tiger...

If inflation were at 3%, all but $776 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If infaltion were at 4%, all but $534 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If inflation were at 5%, all but $276 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If inflation were at 6%, all of that Blue spending would be accounted for.

I think we're talking in the range of at least 4% inflation during those years. This leaves about $534 billion unaccounted for out of the Blue spending. Even if every penny of that were added to the $1.41 trillion the report I provided stated, it still gets nowhere near the neighborhood of the $3.7 billion in the report I and others trashed, and you loosely defended. $1.91 trillion isn't $3.7 trillion is it.

At 4% inflation the amount of unaccounted for expenditures in the Green and Blue segments would be $534 billion. If we break that $534 billion down by twelve years, we're talking about $44.5 billion dollars per year. Did the military have new projects and other expenditures that were costing more funding outside the War on Terrorism? It would seem to me that would be an abvious yes. It is generally the case.

You’re still not making an argument, you’re just making sidelong comments without directly saying what you think is wrong with the numbers I posted.

I shouldn't have to say anything about those numbers. The core basis for your comments, rests on us being able to tell what normal military spending actually is. And then you pull up a flawed model addressing zero projected cost growth over twelve years. Then when I ask you if you can see any problem with that graph, you bluster about too much military spending, and completely ignore the fact that your own chart is so severely flawed, it's basically useless to us.

Let me ask you some direct questions and see if you can answer them. What reason that doesn’t involve the war on terror caused military spending to go from 300B to 500B in 8 years? We're talking about roughly $290 to $480 billion in those eight years. Here's the inflation breackdown on that.

If inflation were at 3%, all but $291 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If infaltion were at 4%, all but $198 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If inflation were at 5%, all but $101 billion of that Blue spending would be accounted for.
If inflation were at 6%, all of that Blue spending would be accounted for.

Once again, the military has new projects and new lauches of new equipment all the time. These are upgrades, better equipment and things to protect our troops, make them more effective. Those can't always be budgeted in, because in many instances they weren't even on the drawing board as few as a couple of years prior. To act like the appropriations committees in 2000 could forsee equipment upgrades in 2004-2012 is just nutty. And yet, that's what those flat-line numbers for the military budget are indicating.

BTW, it’s pedal, not peddle. As in backpedal.

You should know, since you're the one that will be doing both.

Was there War on Terrorism type spending in that Blue area? It's impossible to know for sure, and to quantify it is even more impossible. As best I can tell, the worst case scenario gets you nowhere near $3.7 trillion, and that was the basis for you saying the $1.41 trillion figure was way to0 low, and we should know that $3.7 figure wasn't all that idiotic. Yes..., it was, and anyone saying it wasn't isn't playing with a full deck.

If you know anything about the military at all, you know that we used to have a two theater military preparedness level.

And before that we had a zero theater military preparedness level. Which somehow got us from 1800 to 1940.

Okay, then you're on the record with the idea that the world hasn't changed, it's not a more dangerous place today, and that we should go back to the rock solid plan of allowing our mililtary to decay between major conflicts. Is that about it? It's what you advocated for with that idiotic statement.

That you don’t express an awareness of this, and are carping on the cost of adding two new division displays either a lack of knowledge on this subject matter, or an attempt to blow smoke hoping nobody will notice.

Neither. I just happen to be an economic conservative who realizes that the United States cannot afford to maintain the current bloated size of the military.

You have bought off an the lunacy the left has been selling, and I wouldn't be too proud of that if I were you. Lets take a look at the U.S. budget growth over the last 11 years. When George Bush came into office, the U.S. debt was pegged at about $5.9 trillion dollars. By the end of this year, it will be somewhere close to $15 trillion. That's nine trillion dollars in growth over 11 years. The very worst case scenario two leftist could drudge up, showed our military spending related to the War on Terrorism has been $3.7 trillion. Even that wouldn't account for the $9 trillion in new debt. When you address the actual figure of around $1.5 trillion spent on the War on Terrorism (through 12 years), it becomes quite clear that even with a full scale war on our hands, the national debt growth WAS NOT heavily impacted by military spending. Without that war, the military expenditures are not that out of line.

The only reason we have/"need" the current size of the military is so that we never have to declare war. That way, there's no draft, ever, and the President can just 'war powers' and 'limited kinetic action' all over the place. This keeps Joe Schmoe Average American from being pissed off because he can keep watching American Idol while his country's leadership pisses away his money, his children's money, his grandchildren's money, and his fellow Americans' lives into the sands of a sweltering desert on the other side of the planet.

Oookay..., we've got another peace nimrod on our hands. Put daisies in our gun-barrels and swish on over and give our enemies a big fat wet one. Then wait six months, and respond as long as foreign troops aren't directing traffic in Washington, D.C. by then.

Explain to us oh Mighty Kong, what would you have done after 09/11? Don't give me a short one sentence response here. I want to hear how you would have responded. I'm sick and tired of you idiot sticks saying, "I don't know what I would have done, but what we did was wrong. It was WRONG! We can't do this anymore" Okay, what can we do? What would you have done after 09/11?

It's over. 1) We can't afford to do that anymore, What a delusional basket case.

2) It's arguably unconstitutional and certainly against the intent of the Founding Fathers,... Thomas Jefferson, as President, sent our military over to Africa to address the Barbary Pirates. You do know that Jefferson was a Founding Father, right?

and 3) the whole idea of being 'ready to fight in two theaters' is based on mobilizing, fighting a total war and pulling out when the other side surrenders. It's about having troops that are trained, equiped, and ready to respond to our nation's military needs in days, not months or years. As for pulling out when the other side surrenders, why do you think we have had peace in South Korea for the last fifty years? Peace doesn't just fluorish because the hostilities have ceased. Why do you think the U.S.S.R. refrained from going through Europe? Was it just because they were nice folks and didn't want to put anybody out? It was the military presence of the United States in Europe that kept things safe. It's their presence there today that keeps others from thinking they can get away with settling old accounts by starting new wars.

It's not 1950 anymore. Wars don't end. They go on forever, and nobody wins. Tell that to the people of Iraq, who are not being slaughtered by their own leader, his sons, and terrorist among them. Their daughters are going to school for the first time. There are women in the government. Tell me who didn't win there, I'd like to know.

Fighting a counter insurgent war in two theaters in 2011 means keeping your Soldiers there for a decade. We simply cannot do that again. Okay, then you're on the record of saying, "If we get attacked again, we will not respond. We simply cannot do that again."

Do you give any thought at all to the ramificfations of what you advocate for?

We go into Iraq and within a few years, thousands dead, tens of hundreds of billions in tax dollars later, our economy is circling the drain, millions out of jobs, borders an international embarrassment, and national security disaster, the dollar worthless, and gas has freaking doubled..

WTF did we win?

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been hampered in their operations.

You realize these are nothing more than fanatical religious gangs, not standing armies, with big military assets.
<>It's fair of you to frame the quesiton any way you like, but I'm not convinced that's the right question. Let's try this. "You realize these are two radical terrorist organizations being directed around the world from the region in question, that planned and launched an international effort that wound up killing about 3,000 people, destroyed two 110 story buildings, destroyed four airliners full of people, prevented our markets from operating for days, and saw trillions of dollars in value evaporate overnight."

The question today is still this. Do we mount a military effort like the one our President, our Military, our leading thinkers including most Conservatives backed, or do we take the advice of Richard Gere and exclaim this is not the time to respond in anger? We had the Democrats frozen in the headlights. Were we to wait until they would have fought us tooth and nail?

We have recently liquidated Osama Bin Laden and a number of other high-level terrorist operatives.

That should only cost a few million if that.

Except we wouldn't have had the prisoners in custody who finally give us a tip that led to his where-abouts. We wouldn't have liquidated tens of thousands of people who backed what the terrorist did.

We haven’t had any further attacks on the United States or it’s assets overseas.

After we invited them into our country, trained them how to fly with our *own* planes...How embarrassing is that?

Frankly, it's a lot more than embarrassing. Put some fricken people in prison. Remove some people from elected office. Get serious about this across the board, not just overseas. Do something that doesn't impact on every person in the nation who wants to fly, then give all sorts of exceptions to the group that is harboring terrorist ideology brazenly.

Again, after thousands dead, trillions in tax dollars, our country now on the brink of total bankruptcy and economy disaster, what the hell did we win?

We thinned the terorist herd. We broke up networks of communication. We removed a guy who promoted terrorism and actually rewarded the families of them. We put a stonger more reasoned government in place in Iraq.

We sent an important message that when the United States is attacked, it's going to be all about payback each and every time, even if the perps are hard to pin down. Imagine the message sent if we didn't do a thing. Are you aware that hardly any Pakistanis thought the U.S. was wrong, and Laden was right, when he was killed? Prior to the actions of the U.S., Laden was seen in a positive light around the world by Islamic people. Not today he isn't.

I've issued this request to a number of other people. I want to you tell me what your plan would have been subsequent to 09/11? Please be as specific as possible. I want to know how you would have how would you have paid back the terrorist organizations directly? What price would you have exacted from them, and how would you have gone about it?

As for the cost of the war, we're looking at about $1.5 trillion over twelve years. For the record, our national debt went up about 9 trillion from 2000, to the end of 2011. Was our cost related to terrorism really the cause of all our debt? Is our response to that terrorism really unacceptable? No.

If we had kept our other spending in line, had paid attention to what our legislation was building in this nation, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Our militray spending IS NOT the problem.

It's real simple, not complex. If you're going to fight a war on fanatical religions gangs:

1. Don't spend multiple trillions in tax payer dollars to go after Muslim gang members.

2. The U.S. severs ALL ties with the U.N.

3. Don't allow in tens of thousands of Muslims from the Mideast to enter the U.S., like compassionate *Bush* did.

4. Stop *all* trade/business with any country that harbors or provides aid to these gangs. We don't care if they pretend they didn't know. If we know where they're at, they do to. Send the message, let them clean their own houses, otherwise no trade, no aid, no nothing. Any gang attacks on the U.S. where it's determined the gangs country of origin, we declare a state of war with that country. They know whats happening, and we immediately take out some of their valuable assets from the air. No ground troops. Send the message not to F with the U.S. They only understand brute strength. Show them brute strength.

5. Seize ALL Iraqi oil and give them just enough to operate. We'll consider it a partial payment for services rendered.

6. U.S. enacts *massive* immigration reform. No immigration period, until we get our country, economy and jobs back. No one gets in until then.

7. Stop *all* U.S. foreign aid to *any* country that has connections to or harbors these gangs. Again, send the message, it won't be tolerated.

8. Create a trained unit of several hundred individuals who's only purpose is to infiltrate and assassinate leaders/presidents or whoever supports or harbors these gangs. Again, if we know where they sleep and train, they do to. Tell these leaders face to face, what the plan is and what will happen. Send the message to their big dogs.

End the bull shit.

You made an attempt to come up with an honest answer and I appreciate the response on point. I'm going to agree with some of your comments and disagree with others.

It's real simple, not complex. If you're going to fight a war on fanatical religions gangs:

Okay, I understand where you're coming from here. You're focusing on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Yes, there are religious gang-like qualities there. The problems are none the less more complex than you state. In Iraq they had a leadership that was dominated by Saddam Hussein and his two sons. In Afghanistan those religious gangs acually were the government.

Once Saddam Hussein was toppled from power, you were going to have some form of government follow on that would be just as bad. His military was a disgusting mish mash of evil players that had been rewarded for being ruthless and merciless. Dropping bombs on Hussein and his sons would have worked about as well as it has worked on Khadaffy. I don't think you get to the place you want to be in Iraq without boots on the ground and taking control of everything.

We actually invaded the nation, and yet we couldn't even find the guy for months.

In Afghanistan we had to change the government. The Taliban were the government until we stepped in. Okay, you bomb the current leaders and then a new crew of Taliban come in. How does that really help?

The only way to get either country under control was to set up new governments. That wasn't going to be successful without us putting people in there on the ground. With either nation, the follow on governments would have been as problematic as the ones that needed to be replaced.

1. Don't spend multiple trillions in tax payer dollars to go after Muslim gang members. And if we don't, who does? Either we address it, or it doesn't happen.

2. The U.S. severs ALL ties with the U.N. I've wanted to do that for decades. What has that got to do with 09/11? We're the ones with the bad policy. I know the U.N. advocates for bad policy, but it's our own stupid decisions that got us where we are now, not the U.N. I say kick them off our soil anyway.

3. Don't allow in tens of thousands of Muslims from the Mideast to enter the U.S., like compassionate *Bush* did. Agreed. In fact, send some of the more offensive ones home. If your teaching hatred for the U.S., if you're causing problems on airlines, GTFO. In fact, we will help you GTFO.

4. Stop *all* trade/business with any country that harbors or provides aid to these gangs. Okay, great. We stop all trade and China buys the oil we would have. That solved a lot.

Look, in Afghanistan the Taliban were the government. Stopping trade would essentially be silly. What trade? Were we going to force change by ending trade with Afghanistan? You know better than that.

We're we conducting robust trade with Iraq? No. Did that bring Hussein under control? No.

We don't care if they pretend they didn't know. If we know where they're at, they do to. Send the message, let them clean their own houses, otherwise no trade, no aid, no nothing. Any gang attacks on the U.S. where it's determined the gangs country of origin, we declare a state of war with that country.

I know that sounds like a great idea. It's an example of getting tough. I understand that. None the less, in Afghanistan they didn't even control parts of the nation. The military was weak. It was infiltrated. Afghanistan didn't have the ability to get the Taliban under control. As I've mentioned prior to this, the government was made up of Taliban members. Do you honestly think this was going to be remedied by the U. S. acting unhappy with the leadership?

They know whats happening, and we immediately take out some of their valuable assets from the air. In Afghanistan you have a dirt poor nation. What are we really going to accomplish by taking out their assets? You cause more poverty. Is that going to cause the populace to adopt a pro-U.S. stance all of a sudden? No. Here once again you have to bring in troops, get the place under control, set up new leadership, and help organize the army so it can maintain control after you leave.

No ground troops. Send the message not to F with the U.S. They only understand brute strength. Show them brute strength. Earlier today you were downgrading this to Muslim gangs. Now you're escalating the remedy to Muslim gangs to be declaring war on nations. You don't see a bit of a conflict there? BTW: How is that working in Libya these days? We're bombing the guy. Is he gone? Has the problem been solved? This is what you advocate in other nations? It's not quite that simple is it. We dumped over $100 million dollars worth of ordinance over Libya in the first 48 hours. Heaven only knows what we've done since then. Did it work?

5. Seize ALL Iraqi oil and give them just enough to operate. We'll consider it a partial payment for services rendered. That seems to me to be a great idea how to anger the Iraqis and turn them against us.

I fault Bush for not negotiating a reasoned reimbursement structure involving increased oil production, which we could have helped with out of the box. The guy just didn't have the mental faculties to get some things done. Luckily, he was smart enough to execute the surge and things turned for the better. Otherwise, it would have been another Vietnam, with our media congratulating the intelligence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban for decades to come, praising the peaceful blissful nation of Iraq like they do Vietnam. Today you hear nothing about Iraq, unless a bomb goes off by a U.S. citizen.

6. U.S. enacts *massive* immigration reform. No immigration period, until we get our country, economy and jobs back. No one gets in until then. I agree with that. Twenty or thirty years ought to about do it, and then I'd let only a trickle in from there on out. I'd go farther and send some people home. If a person even hints they're a radical Muslim their hair wouldn't be dry after their last shower, before they'd arrive in the nation of their destination. Good riddance. As for illegals, no services, no work, self-deportation now.

7. Stop *all* U.S. foreign aid to *any* country that has connections to or harbors these gangs. Again, send the message, it won't be tolerated. You know, that sounds like the right thing to do. In reality, where does that nation go next for a handout? We're fast approaching the day, if it's not already here, where China would be more than willing to pick up a few friends for the amount of money we've been sending them? Sound like a good outcome to you? We immediately send folks into the camp of the nation that is going to give us trouble for the next fifty to one hundred years.

8. Create a trained unit of several hundred individuals who's only purpose is to infiltrate and assassinate leaders/presidents or whoever supports or harbors these gangs. You can't unilaterally go out and do stuff like this. The international community isn't going to sign off. As much as I don't like the globalist movement, I don't agree with nations taking unilateral action either. There has to be some consensus. It opens up a whole can of worms when nations go out on their own, and if we do it, so can anyone else. To hell with the U.N., with regard to this. I mean that the U.S. needs to get a fair number of heads of state to agree to our actions. And then it has to be focused on the areas where the problem started. We can't just develop a hit-squad and set about taking out heads of state. If this is going to become the norm, then we open up a whole can of worms with other nations that think they should be able to do the same thing. Do you think China should be able to do this? How about Venezuela? How about Syria? How about Libya?

Again, if we know where they sleep and train, they do to. Tell these leaders face to face, what the plan is and what will happen. Send the message to their big dogs.

Talking tough sounds good. It doesn't work. Sooner or later you have to put boots on the ground. Did we talk tough to Hussein? Have we talked tough to Khadaffy? How is that working out for us?

End the bull shit. Yes, well I agree that some changes should be made. I don't think your plan to replace the military actions we have taken are realistic. The mess we would create would not suit us well either. IMO, we are actually placing infrastructure in place to be able to expect these governments to control their more radicalized populace. We've done so in an organized manner. We would not have achieved this orderly transition by simple bombing alone.

I don't like the idea of putting our men and women in harms way. I wouldn't have liked that in WWI or WWII either. There are times that call for war. This was one of them.

You’re up early! Saw your unmistakable blue/gray reply. Have a happy 4th!

-——why are they complaining about the cost of the war——

A dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on union retirement or crack baby formula

The redistribution is to democrats, only democrats, lazy democrats,the detritus of the American cities

I figured staring that the ceiling wasn’t going to be all that productive, so after a half an hour of it, I got up at 4:30.

Thank you for the greetings. I hope your Fourth of July is a nice family occasion for you.

We disagree..I stand with #52.

We've seen what the past 25 years of this bullshit foreign policy/open borders has bought us. We're now on our knees.

America might never recover from these destruction country killing government foreign policies.

America is now broke, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, careers, investments, retirements, homes, businesses, savings, etc...Our standard of living is nose diving and our borders here at *home* have not only become a national security disaster, but a government sponsored betrayal of the American people.

We can no longer be the worlds nanny or police officer...That cheet is done. I support fortress America, your best friend or worst possible enemy.

Most Americans have had a belly full of this country killing foreign policy. It's nearly left America dead on the floor. We won *nothing* but extreme gas prices, a devastated economy, millions jobless, homeless etc.

I favor fortress America, America first all the time policy. No compromise.

America makes a declaration, we can either be your very best friend, or your worst possible nightmare, and then prepare, back the talk up, fortify.

I do not favor spending multiple *trillions* of America's treasure chasing bathrobe wearing religious gangsters around the back alleys of Bulsheetistan. It becomes a cesspool of corruption, plane loads of American tax dollars just disappear, suddenly insiders become super wealthy.

Too bad our leadership is more concerned about the borders and economy in Outer Mongolia, than it's own homeland. Of course it fits into the UN/U.S. nation building, one world order scheme. Many years ago I never thought it would happen, and really didn't believe the one world order pap. I was very wrong about that. It's all very real.

Do I think what I said here and in #52 will happen? Nope.

I believe corrupt government and their corrupt foreign policies have gone too far and believe our government has become and punitive, corrupt all controlling oligarchy.

It's gone so far, I now believe what you see in these U.S. elections are a fraud, a choreographed manipulated production to appease and deceive...Make you believe something might happen or change, give you hope, when in reality, things just get worse and worse.

Have a good and safe 4th.

We disagree..I stand with #52. Okay, good. I'm not demanding you adopt my set of views.

We've seen what the past 25 years of this bullshit foreign policy/open borders has bought us. We're now on our knees. We probably agree a lot more than you think about foreign policy and open borders. I don't agree with you about Iraq and Afghanistan, but there are a lot of other foreign policy decisions that I abhore.

America might never recover from these destruction country killing government foreign policies. While I do have grave concerns about part of this, and I've touched on that, our gravest concern right now is to get this butthead to stop spending us into oblivion by burning off cash to keep people employed for a few more months. These trillion dollar programs that keep people employed for a few months, then fail to keep them employed any longer, are no better than taking a thousand barrels of U.S. currency and burning it in our fireplace to keep warm during winter.

America is now broke, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, careers, investments, retirements, homes, businesses, savings, etc...Our standard of living is nose diving and our borders here at *home* have not only become a national security disaster, but a government sponsored betrayal of the American people. I agree with this. I would add that we are also doing our damndest to manufacture our next global adversary.

We can no longer be the worlds nanny or police officer...That cheet is done. I support fortress America, your best friend or worst possible enemy. In the connotation you do, I don't. If we don't keep a presence around the world, someone else will. If we withdraw from nations where we had close relationships, someone else will fill the void. Some people are going to like us. Some people are going to hate us. That's life. I do believe we need a strong military second to none. I do believe we have to use that military from time to time. I do believe we must project internationally.

Most Americans have had a belly full of this country killing foreign policy. It's nearly left America dead on the floor. We won *nothing* but extreme gas prices, a devastated economy, millions jobless, homeless etc. The war did not cause all of the problems we are facing today. If managed properly, none of the major problems we are facing today would exist. We had Democrats, Republicans, and judges team up to force lenders to make loans to people who couldn't pay them off. Massive defaults finally happened. Here we are. Lending institutions went belly up. Even Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac tanked because of the number of people who defaulted on their loans. And why would people avoid defaulting on their loans, when they had very little money of their own invested in them.

Credit snapped tight as a clams ass. Small businesses with a line of credit suddenly didn't. Many had no choice but to close their doors. We've got a guy in there right now who has done everything he can to prevent a recovery from taking place.

I favor fortress America, America first all the time policy. No compromise. I agree with that too, but then our interpretations don't match up. I believe you think that some things we do are anti-U.S. or put the U.S. in the back seat. Today, with the loons we have in there, I'm inclined to agree far more than I normally would about that concept. Normally a lot of the things that make it look likey we're crazy, are done for reasons that date back fifty to sixty years. We have working relationships with nations we didn't have in the 50s and 60s. They may not like us a whole lot, but they do have 'some' relations with the U.S., and things have been stable in the Middle-East for a long time. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is working a game, and people are buying into that. Big mistake. Trouble lies ahead.

America makes a declaration, we can either be your very best friend, or your worst possible nightmare, and then prepare, back the talk up, fortify. I'm not inclined to word it quite that way. I do believe we have to send a clear message about what other governments and entities can get away with, but I don't think bluster and treat of total destruction is the right tactic. I would prefer to work with other nations, realizing that our goals are not always going to be theirs. Still, there is generally some common ground where we can work together. Should we sell ourselves out, as we have done with China? Absolutely not.

I do not favor spending multiple *trillions* of America's treasure chasing bathrobe wearing religious gangsters around the back alleys of Bulsheetistan. Well I do if that's what it takes. And IMO, that's what it takes. Taking out people exclusively by missle isn't going to win you any friends in the long term. It's not going to seem reasonable, and people are going to remember it the rest of their lives. Putting troops on the ground puts a human face on it. We interact with people and they see that we actually do have their interests at heart too.

I keep mentioning the demise of Osama Bin Laden. Here's a guy that was well respected in Islamic circles. If we had been doing nothing but blowing up citizen across the region for the last eight years, don't you think he would have gotten more sympathy upon his death? I do. By us going in and trying to clean things up, the people of the region were able to see that the U.S. wasn't a self-centered (screw everyone else) nation. The goal is to have normalized friendly relations with all nations. If we're turning their populace off by boming all the time, how is that going to be achieved?

We shouldn't kid ourself that every person over there is going to like us. We should strive to get as many to like us as possible in the process. I believe we have done that.

It becomes a cesspool of corruption, plane loads of American tax dollars just disappear, suddenly insiders become super wealthy. If a company is handling tens of billions in military procurement contracts, some people are going to make a lot of money. Defense is a perview of the government, something we should be spending money on. Either we believe in Capitalism and that it floats all boats, or we don't. I realize that seems convoluted when talking about government spending, but that's the nature of the military budget. The dollars get spend by our government. It's the profit motive that keeps business in line. We can't march in and state that profits will be this or that, then expect the profit motive to work in a healthy manner to make it preferable that the products are worthy of purchase. I'm not trying to give you a hard time on this point, but this sounds a lot like the "Blame the Rich" comments the Left makes. I'm sure you don't see it that way, and that's okay. I'm just putting it out there.

Too bad our leadership is more concerned about the borders and economy in Outer Mongolia, than it's own homeland. Absolutely! Of course it fits into the UN/U.S. nation building, one world order scheme. I believe so too. The U.N. has made no bones about it, they want open borders to break down nationalistic cohesion. The ultimate goal is for the U.N. to govern everything. Many years ago I never thought it would happen, and really didn't believe the one world order pap. I was very wrong about that. It's all very real. Yes, it's all very real, and it's all very evil, something I percieved at first when I read your words. It fits here.

It is my opinion that the transition from a trusting to a questioning citizen takes about 15 to 20 years to fully flesh out. I don't think that makes a person a hater of our nation. I love our nation. It merely becomes obvious over time, that our leaders are not making decisions in our best interest. As you describe your change in perceptions, I look back on the change in my own. As late as the mid-1990s, I was still convinced that our leaders really did want our nation to succeed, free and sovereign. That is unquestionably not the case today.

Do I think what I said here and in #52 will happen? Nope. I've got to tell you, I think Obama has even got some of the people on the Left shaking in their boots. Last time I thinks folks dismissed how bad he could be, and voted to help make history. What they got in return, has scared the ---- out of some of them. This guy has a real problem on this hands headed into 2012. People are understanding for the first time, that the Leftist movement in the United States wants to destroy it. Even hating the nation like they do, you saw Democrats dancing in the streets when our military took out Osama Bin Laden. They haven't had a come to Jesus moment like that since 09/11, and this didn't involve a direct attack on the U.S. It was pure and simple a military operating to terminate Laden, and the rank and file on the Left was thrilled about it.

I believe corrupt government and their corrupt foreign policies have gone too far and believe our government has become and punitive, corrupt all controlling oligarchy. I'm not arguing with you on that fact. It seems obvious to me too. If we had some better people in there, I believe the things that trouble you would be far less troublesome. We're never going to see eye to eye on military involvement, but if you and I both thought our leaders had our best interests at heart, and only our best interests at heart, it would cure a world of ailments. At least for me it would.

It's gone so far, I now believe what you see in these U.S. elections are a fraud, a choreographed manipulated production to appease and deceive...Make you believe something might happen or change, give you hope, when in reality, things just get worse and worse. I'm not completely going down that path yet, but I can understand why your thoughts are running along those lines. At the very best, we still do have some blatant corruption of the courts. Some of these judges are activist, and don't give a damn what their powers actually are at all. They're going to legislate and screw anyone who objects.

Have a good and safe 4th.

And to you too. Every good wish. I appreciate your positions. I know those positions are not taken in deference to your understanding of the Constitution. You're trying to do what is right, and even if we disagree, at least our goals are similar. I can assure you, our goals are similar, even if that seems impossible to you.

Take care.

We can no longer be the worlds nanny or police officer...We're broke and have major issues at home. I support fortress America, your best friend or worst possible enemy.

If we don't keep a presence around the world, someone else will.

Big difference between being the global nanny or global cop, at U.S. tax payer expense, and have a "presence" around the world.

Again, 25 years of bad destructive intrusive foreign policies has helped bankrupt the U.S. and looted U.S. treasury/assets.

We can no longer be the worlds nanny or police officer... The fact is, we can and we will. Unless we want to pull our turtle's head into our shell, we will continue to do the heavy lifting on the planet. Please name for me your top three choices for becoming the world's nanny, police officer, or hegemon if the U. S. were to abdicate that (these) position(s). Someone is going to do it.

We're broke and have major issues at home. We're not broke. We do have major issues. When those major issues are addressed, our economy will turn around and we will pay down the debt. That doesn't mean that we should be frivolous with regard to what we continue to spend. There are however obligations when you're the biggest player on the block.

I support fortress America, your best friend or worst possible enemy. If we bring our troops home to our own borders, where do future conflicts take place? If you refuse to address problems overseas, where will those problems eventually crop up? If we bring home all our troops home, what's the use of having them? This leads to only one fate, our military is cut to the bone. Our equipment is parsed off to where we essentially don't have any. Our Navy that has already been cut by over 50%, will bet cut to 25 or event 10%. While this is being done, you can bet your ass that welfare and other give-away programs expand in kind, just like they have always done. At the same time China and the Terrorists ramp up their efforts unopposed, and you've got a global monopoly of power that opposes everything we stand for. None of this sounds like the road to success to me. That's because it undeniably isn't.

If we don't keep a presence around the world, someone else will.

Big difference between being the global nanny or global cop, at U.S. tax payer expense, and have a "presence" around the world. Look, you can pretend that our diplomatic services is the answer to what ailes us if you like. I've seen far too many of their failures to buy into that. No sale. Right now we have Hillary Clinton driving the diplomatic servies of our nation. You honestly think that's the way to go?

She's a big U.N. loving errand girl.

Once again, whether you realize it or not, you're making the Left's big arguements here.

Again, 25 years of bad destructive intrusive foreign policies has helped bankrupt the U.S. and looted U.S. treasury/assets. There are costs of doing business. If you're going to be a global player, you're going to have global player expenses. Our military is an expense we're going to have to accept. To do otherwise is to watch terrorists and rogue nations rule the planet.

You could post your comments here on D.U., Daily KOS, or any number of Leftist sites and you'd get rounds of applause. If I posted my comments there, I'd get roundly attacked from all directions.

Does it bother you that this is true?

There's one statement you made that I'd like to address further.

Again, 25 years¹ of bad² destructive³ intrusive⁴ foreign policies has helped bankrupt⁵ the U.S. and looted U.S. treasury⁶/assets⁷.

1. Okay, so it's your take that the last two and a half years of Reagan's term (mid 1986 to January 1989), he was administering bad, destrucive, foreign policies that helped bankrupt the U.S., looted it's treasury and assets. I know the people on KOS buy into that 100%, but the folks here don't. Where did you get these interesting perceptions?
2. Please explain in detail what policies of Reagan were bad for our nation. I'd honestly like to hear an answer to that.
3. Please explain in detail what policies of Reagan's were destructive to our nation. I'd like to know what your thoughts on that are too.
4. Please explain in detail what policies of Reagan's were overly intrusive.
5. Please explain in detail how he helped bankrupt the United States.
6. Please explain in detail how he looted the U.S. Treasury.
7. Please explain in detail how he looted U.S. Assets.

While it's somewhat unfair to link this all to Reagan, it really does shine the light of absurdity on your claims better than I could by addressing every act over the last 25 years. Your comments are baseless. Your conclusions are absurd.

This 25 years also encompases the initial Gulf War. This was a short war focused on freeing Kuwait, and more importantly caging Saddam Hussein and the Republican Guard. Hussein was intent on taking Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and all points from Baghdad to the Southern end of the Arabian Peninsula. We're talking about a significant portion of the world's oil supply here. Was it just a lark, the U.S. imperial diplomacy at work here, or was there a valid reason to become involved? Let's recall, he had at one point attacked, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. He had also attacked parts of his own populace with chemical weapons. He was directly responsible for the deaths of at least 1.2 millon people, both foreign and his own.

At the same time, lets address the embassies that were destroyed. Lets address our ship that was attacked. We allowed those to take place without taking military actions. That's just what you seem to desire here. We refrain from taking military action, and by golly the world will be a better place for you and I and our nation. How did that work out for us. A few short years later, the attacks were taking place on our own soil. You have the proof right in front of you, but you ignore it to push some absurd agenda and blame the U.S. military policies for what ailes us. That's nonsense.

Let's take a look at an example of a nation that does not take military action around the world. It only takes on direct threats, on or near it's borders. Has Israel seen a drop off of hostility towards it? No, in fact the enemies of Israel are constantly ramping up the threat against it.

What in the sam hell convinces you that the U. S. would be treated any differently if it were to crawl back into it's shell?

We stand for everything the terrorists hate. We are a direct threat to them because we exist. We have a lifestyle that flies in the face of their teachings. They wish to see Islam take over the world. China has said it is going to replace us as the world's leading hegemon. You don't see any indication that the U.S. must keep a global military presense? Honestly?

You've got your head in the sand fella.