500 Billion A Year For Defense?

First, the 2003 invasion was the easy part, it was the actual occupation that ended up costing us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and we shouldered the vast majority of the cost. In addition, other than the British, there was virtually no other international support and we ended up providing 73% of the manpower during the invasion and over 90% during the occupation. The whole point of an alliance is for more than two countries to significantly contribute.

 

And they will never contribute unless we stop doing the heavy lifting.

 

Are you even aware what Halliburton is, or what it does?

It is a construction company, the largest in the world. So if you need a new base built somewhere in the world, who are you going to have do it?

​

And who exactly is Raytheon?

Well, they are one of the leading aerospace companies in the world. But they have been involved in a great many things over the decades.

The backbone of the company since WWII has been it's RADAR systems. In fact, one of their subsidiaries for 20 years was Amana Refrigeration. This is why the company was famous for the "Radar Range", the first widely available microwave oven. They are the leading provider for ground based RADAR systems in the country, and one of the 3 leaders in the world in this area. However, they also produced aircraft for many years after they purchased Beach Aircraft. This included the T-6A Texan II trainer.

A lot of their more "defense related" business actually came when they purchased the Aircraft and RADAR-Electronics segments of Hughes Aerospace in 1997. In the late 1990's it divested itself of most of it's non-defense subsidiaries that did not deal with RADAR. And in the early 2000's it started to invest heavily in signal and data communications companies. BNN, Applied Signal, Foreground Security, Stonesoft, and other IT companies have all been picked up by Raytheon over the last dozen years or so.

Not to forget that they are also one of the largest producers of semiconductors in the world. Specifically Gallium-Arsenide semiconductors that are key for use in RADAR-microwave applications, as well as various forms of detectors. They are also key in high-end solar cell applications.

This is why satellites o not use silicon cells, but ones that are GaAs.

In reality, their only real "defense project" of note is the PATRIOT Missile system.

But yea, interesting that you pick a company with a large base in industry, and only seem to think of it as a "military company". I guess the same is true for Boeing as well? General Motors? Motorola?

 

And this is all basically because of a Clinton era program.

Basically as part of the money games that was done to "Balance the budget" when he was in office, the DoD sold off most of the "Base Housing" to civilian companies. They now run it under long term contracts, where the US pays them for maintaining the housing.

And surprise surprise, surprise. They have been doing a piss-poor job of it. I have been complaining about this for over a decade, and I do not expect it to change any time soon.

And what a shock, the company that actually runs the majority of the base housing is not even a US company. It is Balfour-Beatty, based in the UK.

 

Funny, because WMDs were found all over the country.

We know for a fact that in 2003 Iraq fired dozens of both Al-Samoud 2 and Ababil-100 missiles. Both proscribed by the UN and classified as WMDs (a WMD is not simply the warhead itself, but also the delivery system). Over 100 of the missiles were found after the end of the war.

The Tuwitha Nuclear Research Center had over 600 tons of processed uranium ("yellowcake"). This was captured by Marines in 2003, and was sold by the Iraqi government in 2008 to a Canadian company for processing.

And from 2003 until recently chemical weapons have been found all over the country. And not just by the US, but by the UK, Polish, and UN forces.

Oh, and then you have the 2009 Declaration. This is when Iraq officially signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. And as part of their joining, they declared 2 bunkers with both chemical weapons and precursors as well as 5 production facilities to the UN for disposal and destruction.

https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/

There are political reasons that the US has never acknowledged the use of Iraqi chemical weapons in either 1990-1991, nor in 2003. But it has not a thing to do with the weapons not existing.

 

Picky biotch..

 

I am far more familiar with it than you are. We do not need any foreign military bases overseas. None are authorized by the Constitution. It is a needless extension of the bureaucracy designed to promote nanny state welfarism for the elites.

 

As we discussed enough times on this forum, those were decommissioned weaponry pursuant to UN mandates and did not constitute "WMD" capable of international danger.

 

Would you give it up with this bull about what is and what isn't in the Constitution. It is not remotely relevant to the discussion that I wanted to start which is

"What kind of military could the U.S. maintain for 500 billion a year?"

 

Yes it is relevant. There is no constitutional authorization for military bases overseas. Our Founders did not want foreign entanglements and would be the first ones to condemn that type of corporate welfare nanny state nonsense.

 

We should not believe the right wing if they are unwilling to pay wartime tax rates for their foreign adventures.

 

Who gives a damn about what the founders wanted. They're dead. Times have changed.

 

I think the first forward military post (fort) established by the United States was in 1813 in the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia) by U.S. Marines and blue jackets.

Excerpt:

When the U.S. Navy went from sail to steam power warships in the late 1800's Congress authorized the establishment of forward naval bases as coaling stations for the navy.

Samoa was one of them. So was Guam.

 

The right wing needs to change their tune and start loving paying wartime tax rates for their foreign adventures.

 

Americans have been paying a war tax.
The first income tax in America was in 1861, it was a war tax to pay for the American Civil War.

 

not with tax cut economics. wartime tax rates for True Patriots!

 

I would rather cut domestic spending.

 

Conservatives, fighting to cut healthcare for millions of people so we can spend more to kill more people. If I cut domestic spending, its going to go directly to reduce the deficit or as a big tax cut for working Americans.

 

Killing people is what the government does best.

Go with your strengths.

 

Pretty funny. You know what the government should be even better at? Spending less. Lets reduce the deficit and make the government fiscally viable or deliver a big tax cut.

 

lol. cut social services for the Poor instead of our extra-Constitutional, wastes of the Peoples' time and money?

are you on the right wing.

 

How exactly are the wars "extra-Constitutional"? Article 1 gives Congress the blanket authority to make war.

 

The Constitution also mentions the army but not the navy.

That's why before the "War Powers Act" of 1973 most of America's wars (there were 140 of them between 1800 - 1934) were fought by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
The vast majority of Americas wars were small wars.

 

If we have to quibble, socialism is about equality. We have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause, nor even a common offense clause.

the common defense cannot cover any scope beyond that because there is no express power delegated.