hence, the title of this thread

USA!

not only free stuff but most people are fleeing their distressed, occupied failed states

Wow, I did not know that you are a liberal now who supports illegal immigration.   

As a strict fan of the US Constitution, I really appreciate your latest post.

According to your quote, appropriation for money for the raising and supporting armies can only go on for two years, maximum.  Hence, it is clear that the garrisoning of the planet with US bases today is definitely in violation of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, although the founding fathers could not have envisioned all of the modern aspects of today's military, the Constitution does not give a green light or blank check to military spending that has currently gone beyond the financial means of the nation.

I am surprised you made the above comment as you did.

You said countries who do not control their deficit spending are doomed in the long-run.  However, your comments above suggest you don't mind if the US overspends beyond its means if it is to the military.  Don't you see that it is this overspending you said you were against, but hypocritically support for the military that will doom the US in the long-run, as did the Rome and the Soviet Union?

Every nation needs to maintain a military that can protect its interests, but the US has a military that definitely not only goes beyond defending its borders, but geared for global domination that it no longer can afford.  Seeing how the US military budget is far greater than Russia, China, Iran, and the DPRK's respective budgets combined, this is clear evidence that it is a gross misallocation of funds.  I would be willing to wager if the US diverted just 25% of its annual military budget to cure cancer for the next deccade, the US can be forever remembered and loved as the conqueror of that disease, instead of the global hegemon, as it is regarded today.

Yes; there is mass corruption in all areas in the discretionary side of the US budget.

It is just military spending accounts for at least half, if not more than half of that budget.  Hence, the corruption and waste in military spending relatively dwarfs the corruption of the other areas.

you must have missed the part in school where they explained sarcasm...

SNIP

The last thing you said is that every country needs a military to defend its interests. I only partially agree with this premise. Because every time we were attacked we needed to go on offense to stop the aggression. So just having defensive capabilities when the aggressors have offensive weapons is not very smart IMHO. If we spend so much that no one attacks us because of our lead in technology, no matter the amount we spend, it is worth every penny. JMHO

They don't know that the military AND PRIVATE COMPANIES spend years and BILLIONS on research and development

"The gov't has a duty to train and equip ("organizing, arming, and disciplining") the military for use in times of conflict.  Do you believe we can simply call up volunteers on a moment's notice to fight multiple, simultaneous conflicts in different theaters without having an ongoing peacetime mission to prepare?"



That's the point I am trying to make; where in the US Constitution does it specifically state that the US needs to prepare to fight an all-out global or perpetual war?  That's right, the US Constitution does not make any such provision.

The Constitution is a rule book, not a complete guide to every decision in government.  The Congress and President have roles in developing and executing our national security strategy.  Why can't you accept that?  The Constitution doesn't say the House can impeach on flimsy hearsay evidence that doesn't rise to the level of criminal conduct, either.  Yet, here we are.

The founding fathers KNEW the pitfalls and costs of maintaining a standing army; that was why they were against it.  Moreover, according to Professor Gregory Foster, a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran teaching at the National Defense University, says the founding fathers, if they were alive today, would definitely OBJECT to how today's military establishment has grown beyond to what they had originally envisioned them to be, where it is the nation's citizens determining the security and foreign policy of the country and NOT the other way around.

Please see https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/07/why-founding-fathers-would-object-todays-military/66668/ for details.   

That is why I and as many others, who believe in fiscal responsibility, take the position that the US budget reallocate to the military only those funds that ensure the nation's border integrity (not to fight global or perpetual wars) and is proportionally appropriate with respect to the spending of its military peers.

Do you honestly believe the founders envisioned the technology, threats and scenarios that nations today have to deal with?  There are plenty of things people attribute to some fictitious hypothetical, such as what the founders would say.  it's easy to make such statements, because there is no way to ever prove you wrong ..... or right for that matter.

The founders included the Navy separately, because in their time, ships on water were the only means of projecting national power beyond ones shores.  Now we have satellites, drones, long range missiles, cruise missiles, bombers, etc.

The US is the #1 Super Power in the world.  We are the target of all other nations who want to increase their standing.

Do you not get that, without the best military on Earth, we would be inviting armed aggression from anyone who thought they could gain from it?  "Peace through Strength."

The Constitution is a rule book, not a complete guide to every decision in government.  The Congress and President have roles in developing and executing our national security strategy.  Why can't you accept that?  The Constitution doesn't say the House can impeach on flimsy hearsay evidence that doesn't rise to the level of criminal conduct, either.  Yet, here we are.

Exactly my point.

The kangaroo court that Trump will be subjected that the founding fathers would definitely be opposed is as Ludacris as the need to spend every discretionary dollar of the US budget on the military as well.



The founders included the Navy separately, because in their time, ships on water were the only means of projecting national power beyond ones shores.  Now we have satellites, drones, long range missiles, cruise missiles, bombers, etc.

Exactly my point again.

If the US has a supreme advantage in technologically advanced weapons that has drastically diminished the need for large armies, navies, and garrisons all over the Earth, why does it continue to spend so much money to maintain those relics of the 20th century?



The US is the #1 Super Power in the world.  We are the target of all other nations who want to increase their standing.

There is no debate that all nations want to be the top dog, but to actively believe that all nations want to start a war with the US in the age of nuclear missiles is as preposterous and being paranoid.



Do you not get that, without the best military on Earth, we would be inviting armed aggression from anyone who thought they could gain from it?  "Peace through Strength."

That's such a fascist foreign relations view of things.

However, since it has been ONLY the US that has been conducting illegal invasions on sovereign nations for at least the last 30 years, it is the other nations in the World, who should be the ones to exercise such policy in fear of the US.

However, since it has been ONLY the US that has been conducting illegal invasions on sovereign nations for at least the last 30 years, it is the other nations in the World, who should be the ones to exercise such policy in fear of the US.

LOL!  What planet do you live on?  Or should I ask, what alternate reality? 

These are just the conflicts between 1990-2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1990%E2%80%932002

Here's the list between 2003-Present:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93present

You really enjoy making nonsensical, false statements to make your point, huh?

Those lists are very misleading.

They definitely are a listing of armed conflicts, but it does not clearly distinguish between wars between two sovereign countries and those whose nature is that of internal civil war, wars against terrorist organizations or drug cartels, and whatever else the authors felt they wanted to throw in. 

For example, the list also mentions the standoff at Waco, Texas between the ATF et al. against the Branch Davidians.  I guess David Koresh would have been honored to have being so dignified as having been a major nemesis to the US that Wikipedia felt that tragedy was worthy to be honored as such.   

I guess American military history teachers at West Point should include the standoff at Waco along side that of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and etc. to their reading lists.   

The kangaroo court that Trump will be subjected that the founding fathers would definitely be opposed is as Ludacris as the need to spend every discretionary dollar of the US budget on the military as well.