Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 pm
Letter: Letter: Does high defense spending really secure U.S.?
Letter to the Editor
East Valley Tribune
|
With regard to Secretary Leon Panetta’s fear that reduced defense spending will “hollow out our military,” one must ask why there are currently over 196,000 American military troops stationed in 150-plus foreign countries. Does the money spent to deploy troops in this manner really help secure the shores of the United States of America?
Bill Betz
Mesa
Posted in
Letters to the editor,
Opinion
on
Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:14 pm.
| Tags:
Leon Panetta,
United States,
Panetta,
United States Armed Forces,
Business_finance,
Health_medical_pharma,
Politics,
War_conflict,
Military Budget,
United States Secretary Of Defense,
Nato,
Government,
Barack Obama,
Secretary,
Bill Betz,
Budget Control Act Of 2011,
Chuck Hagel
truth posted at 1:42 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
U.S. Defense spending soared from $287 billion in 2001 to more than $700 billion in 2010 and 2011, including the supplemental cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Currently spends $250 billion more on the military each year than it does on Medicare. Bloomberg.com
truth posted at 1:51 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
The single most defining element of American politics over the last four years is that the Republican party has fallen out of the crazy tree and hit every branch on the way down. It is no longer even appropriate to say the Republican party is dominated by its conservative wing; but rather, that the GOP is controlled by its extreme, radical wing.
The shift of the Republican to the far, far right is not a recent development. Instead, it is reflective of a four-decade shift in ideological orientation in the GOP: from a party once torn between distinct conservative and moderate wings, to one in which moderates have gone the way of dinosaurs and VCRs. But there is no question that in the past four years, the extremism of the GOP has increased dramatically – so much so that their most recent president, George W Bush, is persona non grata in the party because he is viewed as too moderate and not sufficiently conservative. Imagine what the Republicans want as a government.
truth posted at 1:54 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
So, my question is: how big a failure will it take for the GOP to re-evaluate their commitment to being the party representing every backward idea ever dreamed up? When does the path of extremism become the obvious wrong choice?
I’ve been haunted by a question recently: How did the GOP win the House in 2010?
I can’t even come up with analogy to express my disbelief of this insane fact that we’ve been living with for more than a year now. How can I explain the dismay at watching the GOP win a popular vote in this country less than two years after letting our economy crash? How could the same people that brought you the Iraq War and didn’t bring you bin Laden ever be returned to power?
Is it like hiring the designer of the Hindenburg to head the FAA? Is it like choosing Lindsay Lohan to be your sober coach? Is it like putting Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and all the billionaire polluters who brought you the Bush administration right back where they can do the most damage?
Arizona Willie posted at 5:53 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
ha Rich you and onerebel are text book examples of " blind partisanship ".
Accuracy posted at 6:10 pm on Sat, Feb 23, 2013.
Bill Betz thinks: “Secretary Leon Panetta’s fear that reduced defense spending will “hollow out our military.”
President Obama’s self-imposed federal budget sequester becomes reality March 1. The cuts will trim $85 billion in domestic and defense spending – which the White House recommended back in August 2011.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says the Pentagon will furlough the vast majority of the Defense Department’s 800,000 civilian workers.
But, will these cuts harm the readiness of U.S. fighting forces?
Rich posted at 7:51 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Willie,
I am a partisan of ...? Or are you just throwing around words you don't understand again?
Arizona Willie posted at 9:22 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Rich, your posts and onerebel's posts, both read like a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're both so right wing oriented you had mechanics remove the left turn signals from your cars.
chatmandu002 posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Bill,
Defense spending is not about security, it's about being prepared to fight or defend. It happens over and over again. After WWII the defense spending was cut and our military wasn't prepared for Korea. After Korea the defense spending was cut and our military wasn't prepared for Vietnam. After Vietnam our defense spending was cut and our military wasn't prepared for Iraq I, Iraq II and Afghanistan. Now we cut the defense spending again and we won't be prepared for the next event our military will be called upon to fight or defend us.
Bluepoet posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
(eating popcorn) Wait, what was the subject of this thread? Oh, yeah, military spending...(but the drama is sooo much more interesting! Shut up and color!)
Military spending remains woefully mis-directed toward the past, while using technologies that are of the future. The money involved is mind-boggling, in its amount, and in its waste, and yet, it is viewed as not only necessary, but an example of one of the few things that the federal government does right!
Alternate universe, indeed!
[offtopic]
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:01 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Notice how "Arizona's Willie" and "Truth" (that's a hoot) never addressed the contents of the Letter to the Editor....they just used the Comments Section to debase and demean other Commenters that they disagreed with.
Now to this great "Letter". The writer hit the nail on the head. We have 30,000 in South Korea who won't be able to last a minute when the North Korean atomic missiles start falling on South Korean. The same thing goes for the US Military on Okinawa and Guam = toast.
There are 100,000, if not more, US Military in Europe = why? They won't last a minute if the Russians send over some of their thousands and thousands and thousands of atomic missiles. It costs hundreds of billions of dollars every year to pay for these "useless" Military members, their dependents, and the Department of Defense employees. Who in their right mind would ever think that these American Military members and their Dependents would ever survive a nuclear attack.
America has to borrow 40cents of ever Dollar that it spends on the US Military. Bring our American Military back to America. If there is a need for a few thousands of US Military personnel to man Diplomatic Missions...that perfectly acceptable.
onerebel posted at 1:10 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Well Willie, at least I'm not a MSNBS sheep that had the headlights removed from my car because I refuse to see what's happening right in front of my eyes![beam]
truth posted at 4:02 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Leon, your-far right no thinking, example if I said, I will place a hot poker to your backside you say no it won't hurt, after doing so you run in circles screaming it hurts, then the next day we can go through it all over again.
IceCat posted at 4:26 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Leon, it's South Korea, not South Korean. Currently North Korea (according to our government) has zero nuclear weapons.
VofReason posted at 12:35 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.
Probably true, whenever any agency gets funds it tends to go to waste. I believe there are real efficiencies that should be had in the militery. Now, what about the huge web of other Government agencies (Education, CMS, Transportation, etc etc). You telling me these are running a peak efficiency?
chuckles3 posted at 3:16 pm on Tue, Feb 26, 2013.
More intelligent letters. If there 25,000 of the best trained, best equipped soldiers in the world on the border of Poland in 1939, many bad things would not have transpired. But hey, they would not have been doing anything to 'secure our shores.'
Moron.