Printable View
Just announced in the Netherlands. Budgetcuts in.... defense! :eek:
10000 FTE's Out.
All tanks: Out!
All minesweepers: Out!
All Cougar helicopters: Out!
A number of F16 jets: Out!
Wow.... 10.000 soldiers. In proportion to the US of A that would be about 200.000!
But in this right-wing crazy world of today in the US this is unthinkable....
What country of equal size would attack the Netherlands? Any big country would wipe them out, so what does it matter if they have a military.
Well, the US hasn't been attacked by a country for 70 years. That hasn't stopped us from worshipping the Pentagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebuddy
This basically means they're unwilling to defend their own people and also unwilling to provide continued military support for NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlebuddy
Of course, everyone knows that it is the USA which carries the freight for NATO, just as they do for the UN. The people of the Netherlands and their politicians figure that their military budget savings can be used instead to prop up their social programs, since they know that the USA will spend their money and blood to protect them when needed.
As far as the Netherland's role in NATO, what good is a member of that military alliance which is unwilling to spend what it takes contribute people and hardware? I say, kick them out of NATO.
Only because we have kind-hearted folks like you who want to strip money from all of our own social programs and hand it to the Pentagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeg
You can't have it both ways.
Or maybe the $600,000,000 of taxpayer money Obama spent on his unconstitutional war in or on Libya in just week one. Remember that he promised us it would be over in "days, not weeks". You voted for Obama, not me. If the Netherlands wants to end it's defensive spending, that is up to the voters there but I resent having to squander our wealth and youth on people who won't provide for their own defense. When North African or Balkan problems such as violence and unbridled immigration threaten to spill over into Europe, that is Europe's problem. There is no need to squander US blood and wealth on Europe these days. It can fend for itself, or not, if that is what it chooses.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
As far as the Netherland's role in NATO, what good is a member of that military alliance which is unwilling to spend what it takes contribute people and hardware? I say, kick them out of NATO.[/QUOTE]
And I'd say you'd probably be doing them a favor. The US oughtta be out of NATO, too.
Congress finally decided last year to stop funding the F22 which Lockheed has been
developing and tweaking since 1986 to the tune of $65 B. What a nice jobs program for all the sh!tkicker creationists in Georgia. I bet a whole bunch of little churches are springing up there like mushrooms. Shoutin' that religion shore beats workin'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...in_F-22_Raptor
How many other Pentagon programs like this are still being funded?
Great, maxx. I'm glad that Democrats never supported new military spending and wars before Republicans recently retook one branch of Congress
Sarcasm aside, Obama has exceeded Bush's imperial presidency in it's acting alone to begin new wars. Bush ignored the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war against Iraq. He did at least accept Congress' allowing him to decide what to do in Iraq at their behest. Obama has taken this one step further by waging war in or on Libya without even receiving the permission of Congress. This is like one of those moments in the Roman Empire where the Emperor simply decided to ignore the Roman Senate and begin acting unilaterally. Congress didn't even sign an enabling act in this case. Dennis Kucinich calls Obama's actions an impeachable offense. When Rand Paul brought this up only 9 other Republicans supported him on this and zero Democrats.
Hillary told Congress to go to hell.
Clinton tells House Obama would ignore its war resolutions trying to constrain the war.
All very harsh words for the Netherlands but we take balancing the budget very serious. Big spending countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are now reaping the bitter fruits of their clops. We still don't understand why we're not a permanent member of the G20, as we're the 14th largest economy on the planet. And all that with a population of 17.000.000.
I think this will also influence the JSF, of which the Netherlands also ordered and invests US$800 million into the project.
I'm not sure what to think about this action in Libya. It seems we're a bit inconsistent in our choice of "humanitarian" missions. We've gone into Kuwait, Kosovo, Iraq, and Libya, among others. But left Sudan, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, the Congo, and Rwanda high-and-dry. What kind of evaluations are we making when we decide whose lives matter more? Could it be that Libya has oil???Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
With that said, how is partaking in a multi-lateral NATO action any different from Kosovo? If we're at war, then who the hell are we fighting?
We're fighting Gaddafi and his mercenaries and trying to stop a bloodbath there. The inconsistency of our foreign policies in the last couple decades just shows how far apart the two major parties have become. Each president brings his own foreign policy advisors. At least in Libya, people asked us to help. How would world history have been different if someone had intervened early when Hitler was invading the Sudetenland?Quote:
With that said, how is partaking in a multi-lateral NATO action any different from Kosovo? If we're at war, then who the hell are we fighting?
In the distant past the U.S.'s actions were supposedly based on our national interest. We stopped Hussein's attempt to grab Kuwait's oil fields and enlarge his hold on the world supply of oil. We stopped Milosovic in the former Yugoslavia because there was fear that the conflicts there would go over into Greece. If Republicans had listened to Carter and encouraged alternative energy sources in the '80s, we wouldn't still be acting hysterically every time our oil supply is threatened. And we wouldn't have been paying the very people we were fighting in Iraq.
In the end, we still have to get corporate interests out of our elections and our government.
maxx, You're all over the place with alternative energy, corporate interests, and other wars we didn't call wars but even if Al Queda, or whomever, wants us to bump off the government in Libya, Congress never declared war against the government of Libya. Worse yet, the Obama administration has defied our lame Congress by totally cutting Congress out of the loop. In that, he has surpassed Bush's audacity. Obama has created a potential constitutional crises as Kucinich and Ron Paul have pointed out. Even if Congress did declare war on Libya and decide to set aside the Billions of dollars it will cost, why are we stuck doing this instead of the Dutch and other European air forces? I thought they were caring people. Meanwhile more people have been slaughtered in Libya than were ever slaughtered by Kaddafi; a point to which gp alluded.
Rand Paul laid it out. Congress did not authorize Obama's war in Libya. The criteria of the War Powers Act were not met with Obama's decision. Congress did not declare a war. Even according to Obama when he campaigned for our votes:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
-Senator Barack Obama 2007
Fast forward to this week. Hillary is saying that he will go on with his war even if Congress objects. Bye, Bye constitutional Republic. Hello Obama who also promised us that his new war would take "Days, not weeks".
Why is it up to Europe and United State, why don't the Saudi's handle it.
Thats because we're like the roman empire was. We're always attacking as a defense against those that wish to do us harm, but the constant attacking and forced influence expansion is why there's always those wishing to do us harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
Because they know its not in the best interest of their monarchy to replace Libya's monarchy with a democracy. The French did that for the U.S. and that resulted in a very bloody end to their monarchy. It also created a drawn out multi-national war to establish democracy across the continent.Quote:
Originally Posted by GUSHI
What's your logic, we haven't been attacked, so the military is unnecessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
More likely we haven't been attacked because our massive military has acted as a deterrent to such an attack.
And yes, our military spending subsidizes the social spending of European nations. They can can devote several percent of their GDP to social spending instead of their own military, knowing that the US provides a protective umbrella over them, gratis. Time to cut 'em loose, and let the Arab league handle [[or not) Libya. Egypt and Saudi have modern US weapon systems, time for them to step up or STFU.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...powers-act.php
"'The President's compliance with the War Powers Act has been consistent with the actions taken by all of his predecessors -- both Democrats and Republicans" since the law was passed in 1973,'Gates said. ..."
The 1973 War Powers Act mentions the President consulting with Congress, consulting being the operative word. No doubt, Dems are defining consulting the way the Republicans consulted the Dems about their tax bill in 2001.
http://www.larson.house.gov/index.ph...=245&Itemid=96
"Tom DeLay reached new heights of hypocrisy today when he announced the Democrats did not put forward a tax plan. This lie further demonstrates the arrogance of power shown by the GOP leadership. The Republican leadership refused to allow a Democratic alternative tax plan to the floor to receive a fair, up or down vote, side by side with the GOP plan. It seems the Republicans are afraid to trust their own members not to vote for the Democratic plan...."
I'm saying that, in the case of the Netherlands, simply stating that "We haven't been bombed" isn't necessarily justification for elimination of the military. I agree that, to an extent, our military can act as a deterrent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
On the other hand, the GOP has made Pentagon spending a budgetary third rail since 1981. If we want to get out of Europe, and leave our allies with a bit more self-determination, then we need to commensurately cut the defense budget. Of course, as we do have economic interests in Europe, and are signatories to NATO, some remaining presence would not be unexpected. In the case of Japan, though, where General MacArthur expressly and constitutionally forbade the Japanese from maintaining a standing military, I'd say we still have a healthy indispensable obligation.
"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."" -wikipediaQuote:
Originally Posted by maxx
Congress did not authorize Obama's war against the Libyan government. There was no such national emergency to justify the President doing any such thing.