5 ms·

You should look into how much the federal and state governments pay to Medicare and Medicaid and other medical programs than compare it to the budget for the va

You should look into how much the federal and state governments pay to Medicare and Medicaid and other medical programs than compare it to the budget for the various military expenditures. Also, although iraq and Vietnam were failures on the surface, I challenge you to put a dollar value on the pax Americana that American military spending has enabled in the last 70 years, a dollar value on the various technologies developed through military funding over the years, and a dollar value on a thriving capitalistic economy that was saved from fascist and communist takeovers by military spending. Than maybe it won't be so strange to you why the us spends so much on the military.

threeseed 9y ago
No one is disputing that the US needs a military. What everyone is questioning (and rightly so) is whether the levels of investment are warranted. Especially when the US has such a pitiful social safety net compared to other Western countries. And let's be serious here. The rest of the world has done more to save the world from fascism and communism than the US has. And entrepreneurship has done far more for innovation than military spending has.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  The other western nations can afford to spend more on their safety net because of the military strength of america and the protection it provides against foreign invaders. America defeated japan essentially by itself while providing enough food and supplied to keep the russian army alive while also providing the majority of the military strength to the western front, essentially being the primary factor in the defeat of fascism. As for communism, it was the us vs ussr while Europe and China and japan rebuilt after the destruction of world War 2, again, the us provided the bulk of the force against communism. Your statement about the rest of the world doing more to save the world from fascism and communism is blatantly false.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > America defeated japan essentially by itself while providing enough food and supplied to keep the russian army alive while also providing the majority of the military strength to the western front, essentially being the primary factor in the defeat of fascism. Where to start? The US did most of the work in beating Japan but they also got a lot of help from Russia toward the end. Once Japan had lost Manchuria to the Russians they gave up on a conditional surrender, they had nothing to bargain for. And the primary factor in defeating fascism? If it wasn't for the British holding out in the west that front would have been lost before you guys even got involved. But more importantly on the Eastern front, the tide had already turned before lend lease to Russia made any difference. It sped the war up but it didn't decide it.
    - Turing_Machine 9y ago
      "Once Japan had lost Manchuria to the Russians they gave up on a conditional surrender, they had nothing to bargain for." Most people think that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what made Japan surrender unconditionally, not the loss of Manchuria. "But more importantly on the Eastern front, the tide had already turned before lend lease to Russia made any difference." I'm sorry, that is simply not correct. The Lend-Lease pipeline was in full operation by early 1942, well before the tide turned at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943. In fact, the Germans moved on Stalingrad specifically to disrupt the Persian Corridor portion of the Lend Lease operation.
      - flukus 9y ago
        > Most people think that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what made Japan surrender unconditionally, not the loss of Manchuria. Most people have never even heard of the battle of Manchuria. Japan were already putting out feelers for a peace before either, they new they couldn't win by then. They'd already had cities destroyed by conventional weapons, the nukes weren't that big a deal. > I'm sorry, that is simply not correct. The Lend-Lease pipeline was in full operation by early 1942, well before the tide turned at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943. In fact, the Germans moved on Stalingrad specifically to disrupt the Persian Corridor portion of the Lend Lease operation. First of all, much of the early contribution was british and Canadian rather than American (http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-...). Lend lease was under way but no where near the total contributions (https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html), chart 6 has a yearly breakdown. The biggest effect was that it allowed the USSR to counter attack after Stalingrad because they didn't have to throw everything into defending the city.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I challenge you to put a dollar value on the pax Americana It's been near constant actual war with an entirely constant internal war footing and national security state limiting basic freedoms justified by the war footing. There is no pax Americana.
- ryanx435 9y ago
  The number of people who have died in armed conflicts throughout the entirety of the globe as a percentage of the population is the lowest it has ever been in human history. The number of wars between nations is at the lowest rate in all of human history. Yes, wars occur and will continue to occur, but to assert that the last 70 years of human history is not in a relatively peaceful time is historically disengenious. Edit to add: the last 70 years have been the first in human history where no major conflicts occured on the European continent. Same with the north American continent. All of this has been under the blanket of American military dominance and the threat of mutually assured destruction.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Not to argue one way or the other because I don't know. But I think that the overall trend comes from way before American military hegemony. And the European Community-now-Union is usually acknowledged by historians for the peace in Europe.
    - ryanx435 9y ago
      The peace in Europe today is a direct result of nato and the threat of invasion from the soviets during the 50s through early 90s. You gotta remember that the Americans occupied western Germany up until reunification (we still have huge military bases in germany) and provided finances to pretty much every european country during their reconstruction periods after the devastation of the world under thr conditions of alliance against communism . Europe hasn't been in a place to fight eachother again because of threat of Soviet invasion and forced alliances with eachother under the American umbrella. Edit: also how can European peace have come from before American hegemony when American hegemony was a direct result of the European powers destroying eachother in a world war?

threeseed 9y ago

No one is disputing that the US needs a military. What everyone is questioning (and rightly so) is whether the levels of investment are warranted. Especially when the US has such a pitiful social safety net compared to other Western countries. And let's be serious here. The rest of the world has done more to save the world from fascism and communism than the US has. And entrepreneurship has done far more for innovation than military spending has.

ryanx435 9y ago
The other western nations can afford to spend more on their safety net because of the military strength of america and the protection it provides against foreign invaders. America defeated japan essentially by itself while providing enough food and supplied to keep the russian army alive while also providing the majority of the military strength to the western front, essentially being the primary factor in the defeat of fascism. As for communism, it was the us vs ussr while Europe and China and japan rebuilt after the destruction of world War 2, again, the us provided the bulk of the force against communism. Your statement about the rest of the world doing more to save the world from fascism and communism is blatantly false.
- flukus 9y ago
  > America defeated japan essentially by itself while providing enough food and supplied to keep the russian army alive while also providing the majority of the military strength to the western front, essentially being the primary factor in the defeat of fascism. Where to start? The US did most of the work in beating Japan but they also got a lot of help from Russia toward the end. Once Japan had lost Manchuria to the Russians they gave up on a conditional surrender, they had nothing to bargain for. And the primary factor in defeating fascism? If it wasn't for the British holding out in the west that front would have been lost before you guys even got involved. But more importantly on the Eastern front, the tide had already turned before lend lease to Russia made any difference. It sped the war up but it didn't decide it.
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    "Once Japan had lost Manchuria to the Russians they gave up on a conditional surrender, they had nothing to bargain for." Most people think that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what made Japan surrender unconditionally, not the loss of Manchuria. "But more importantly on the Eastern front, the tide had already turned before lend lease to Russia made any difference." I'm sorry, that is simply not correct. The Lend-Lease pipeline was in full operation by early 1942, well before the tide turned at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943. In fact, the Germans moved on Stalingrad specifically to disrupt the Persian Corridor portion of the Lend Lease operation.
    - flukus 9y ago
      > Most people think that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what made Japan surrender unconditionally, not the loss of Manchuria. Most people have never even heard of the battle of Manchuria. Japan were already putting out feelers for a peace before either, they new they couldn't win by then. They'd already had cities destroyed by conventional weapons, the nukes weren't that big a deal. > I'm sorry, that is simply not correct. The Lend-Lease pipeline was in full operation by early 1942, well before the tide turned at the Battle of Stalingrad in early 1943. In fact, the Germans moved on Stalingrad specifically to disrupt the Persian Corridor portion of the Lend Lease operation. First of all, much of the early contribution was british and Canadian rather than American (http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-...). Lend lease was under way but no where near the total contributions (https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html), chart 6 has a yearly breakdown. The biggest effect was that it allowed the USSR to counter attack after Stalingrad because they didn't have to throw everything into defending the city.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I challenge you to put a dollar value on the pax Americana It's been near constant actual war with an entirely constant internal war footing and national security state limiting basic freedoms justified by the war footing. There is no pax Americana.

ryanx435 9y ago
The number of people who have died in armed conflicts throughout the entirety of the globe as a percentage of the population is the lowest it has ever been in human history. The number of wars between nations is at the lowest rate in all of human history. Yes, wars occur and will continue to occur, but to assert that the last 70 years of human history is not in a relatively peaceful time is historically disengenious. Edit to add: the last 70 years have been the first in human history where no major conflicts occured on the European continent. Same with the north American continent. All of this has been under the blanket of American military dominance and the threat of mutually assured destruction.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Not to argue one way or the other because I don't know. But I think that the overall trend comes from way before American military hegemony. And the European Community-now-Union is usually acknowledged by historians for the peace in Europe.
  - ryanx435 9y ago
    The peace in Europe today is a direct result of nato and the threat of invasion from the soviets during the 50s through early 90s. You gotta remember that the Americans occupied western Germany up until reunification (we still have huge military bases in germany) and provided finances to pretty much every european country during their reconstruction periods after the devastation of the world under thr conditions of alliance against communism . Europe hasn't been in a place to fight eachother again because of threat of Soviet invasion and forced alliances with eachother under the American umbrella. Edit: also how can European peace have come from before American hegemony when American hegemony was a direct result of the European powers destroying eachother in a world war?