English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I am interested to know, why we have a military, set up to take over countries, when the constituion cleary states, we will only defend not take land? A simple Missile defends system would do the trick to defend our nation. Why do we need to spend 35% of our taxes on the military?

2007-09-07 16:39:01 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

I love the one, with Japan would have invaded us in WW2. How? over the Bering street with Camels? Hitler couldn't even make it over the 18 miles wide channel to England and his war machine was superior to Japan..

2007-09-07 16:51:51 · update #1

11 answers

I agree completely, were so far past what was intended, we are by far the worlds leading "defense" spender. And what is the point, we can't secure our borders, we did absolutely nothing to prevent 9/11, were spending billions upon billions of dollars every year for something that is not going to benefit Americans.

2007-09-07 16:46:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

You have a good question, but you lose credibility with the 35% statement. The US does spend on defense, as a percent of national GDP, at a higher rate then most other nations in Europe, Japan, Austraila, or Canada, but we spend no where near 35%.
I am not a constitutional expert, but I am not sure where you see the defend not take land clause. Reading the constitution is important, but often it has to interpreted against precidence. And if that clause exists, there is a historical precidence from almost every war/conflict we have engaged in to send in troops. The US has not claimed any land in Iraq, or appointed any region a protecorate.
Ok, next point. A "simple" missle defense system? We do not have ANY missle defense system in place today. Much less simple or complex. So if Russia or China launched missles at the US today, they would hit thier targets. A missle defense system would not have stopped the first world trade center attack, the second two World Trade Center attacks, or the Oklahoma City bombing. It is just hard to answer the question when all the discussion points you make are not based on facts, even if the person agreed with you slant of not having an military active in foreign lands. By the way, the US did go through a serious period of isolationism, ie let the world work out their own problems, and that may happen again.

2007-09-08 00:21:18 · answer #2 · answered by Gatsby216 7 · 0 0

Well WW1 was the war to end all wars. And we could have dimantled the armed forces then. But guess what WW2 started and if we didnt have a military then Japan would have invaded us and we wouldnt be able to stop them. And some of that money is being spent on equipment that is unmanning the battle field which in a sense is saving lives.

What happens if China decides to take over Taiwan. Do we just leave them to fend for themselves? Or we can impose sanctions on china, that would work. NOT

What do you mean how, Do you not know about pearl harbor?
Where did you goto school?
If we didnt have a navy they would have just landed on the west coast, and if we didnt have a military how would we have stopped them?

2007-09-07 23:45:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's all about protecting corporate america man. You or I have no importance in being protected by even our own military. You're right about them speding our tax money to help keep corporations alive while at the same time these corporations has no interest in giving you or I the means of steady income while you should work for them. They'll even make threats to ship our jobs overseas for a low down dirt cheap rip off labors overseas. Yet, as I already mentioned, we are the ones that are bailing these corporations out for their own down fall via our tax money. This country or any other country has been control by mostly large corporations that we have to wage war against other countries if interests have been disrupted by that country. good enough, yes?

2007-09-07 23:55:13 · answer #4 · answered by FILO 6 · 1 0

The Bush and Reagan types would lose their means of fattening the pockets of their defense corporate backers. Also, AIPAC would never allow the US to tone down the military.

2007-09-07 23:47:15 · answer #5 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2 0

To take your land.
Dont have the marbles to use our might on anyone but you.
You .. at Ruby Ridge
You .. in Waco

You are a lazy coward who will only speak his mind when it is incorrect and easily refutied with logic.

Everyone else is still on guard against Your government.
You will lose. You are the paper Dragon.

2007-09-07 23:47:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

It's seemed to work in the past. Except when Jimmy scalped the military in the late '70s

2007-09-07 23:44:32 · answer #7 · answered by The Hammer 6 · 0 2

The whole ordeal is scary to think about.

2007-09-08 11:35:17 · answer #8 · answered by Spirit Dancer 5 · 0 0

We are the world police. It is called "omnipresence".

2007-09-07 23:47:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

the theory is,

the best defense is the best offence!!!

or somethin like that

2007-09-07 23:47:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers