Jeb Bush's Great Idea - More Military Spending

[Fern]

Wow, what a creative idea. Suit up for more war....
-snip-

I think it's stupid to frame this as an "idea".

Military strength etc is one of those issues that all candidates must address in a Presidential election.

He's just telling us which side he's taking. And given that he's running as a Repub this is hardly surprising.

BTW: Most people who favor a strong military do so under the belief that having one means you're less likely to be attacked/get in a war. So, this is opposite of what you appear to think.

Fern

 

[Black Octagon]

I think it's stupid to frame this as an "idea".



Military strength etc is one of those issues that all candidates must address in a Presidential election.



He's just telling us which side he's taking. And given that he's running as a Repub this is hardly surprising.



BTW: Most people who favor a strong military do so under the belief that having one means you're less likely to be attacked/get in a war. So, this is opposite of what you appear to think.



Fern

I'd normally agree with you if we had confidence that this was just another Republican. With Wolfowitz's name resurfacing, however, my fear is that this is yet another play for power from the same neoconservative nutjobs that have been trying to advance the same militaristic agenda since the Reagan years.

That agenda, unlike the conventional conservative one, seeks to massively increase military spending so as to actually fight military campaigns. Not just to act as a deterrent à la old skool Cold War nuclear strategy

 

[Spungo]

BTW: Most people who favor a strong military do so under the belief that having one means you're less likely to be attacked/get in a war. So, this is opposite of what you appear to think.

Are you sure about that? McCain's campaign basically boiled down to the idea of never-ending war in every country on the planet. He doesn't try to hide it. He's proud of his position, and people seem to agree with it.

I think it was Romney who mocked Obama for wanted to bring the number of horses in the army down to pre-WW2 levels (or something stupid like that), and people agreed with Romney. The American people actually want endless wars and retarded levels of military spending. Ron Paul was considered to be a crazy outsider when he said imperialism was ultimately a bad policy.

 

[sportage]

I still find it amusing that Jeb tries to distance himself from daddy Bush and bro GW Bush.
While Jeb is in fact a carbon copy of the two, more so another GW top to bottom.
Hired all the cronies from his brother administration, and now when asked about SS marriage Jeb replies he is against and it should be a local issue.
HUH?
Really Jeb?
Are we playing back to the future, Jeb?
Gawd I hope no one asks Jeb about slavery or the 1960's civil rights bill.
This guy is more than batshet crazy.
I truly believe he has severe mental issues not yet addressed.
What is it with the Bush family? I really want to know. And everyone should ask that same question too.
What what the hell did Barbara Bush smoke or consume while pregnant, to cause such sever brain damage in her children?
Or was it a case of slippery hands, and the kid just kept falling on its head?
Something very weird is going on with this family.
I mean seriously, something very weird indeed....

 

[irishScott]

Question: Is America safe from foreign threats?
Answer: Yes

Question: Are American interests/allies overseas safe?
Answer: Mostly yes, and the ones that aren't have never been safe to being with.

So why do we need an even bigger military? We can already blow up the world dozens of times over and can have large numbers of boots on the ground anywhere in the world within hours. What more do you need? /facepalm

 

[Sonikku]

Question: Is America safe from foreign threats?
Answer: Yes

Question: Are American interests/allies overseas safe?
Answer: Mostly yes, and the ones that aren't have never been safe to being with.

So why do we need an even bigger military?

Stimulus spending. The pentagon doesn't want any more tanks but by telling them to make more anyway it keeps tank makers employed.

Or do you want the tank manufacturers to starve? Is that what you want Scott? Why do you hate America?

 

[nickqt]

Question: Is America safe from foreign threats?
Answer: Yes

Question: Are American interests/allies overseas safe?
Answer: Mostly yes, and the ones that aren't have never been safe to being with.

So why do we need an even bigger military? We can already blow up the world dozens of times over and can have large numbers of boots on the ground anywhere in the world within hours. What more do you need? /facepalm

We need to direct more of the US Treasury into the right bank accounts, like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, rather than that lazy family down the street who doesn't belong to your tribe. Because freedom.

 

[Linux23]

We need to direct more of the US Treasury into the right bank accounts, like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, rather than that lazy family down the street who doesn't belong to your tribe. Because freedom.

Yep Fuck that starving whiny brat kid. He should have been born rich. Murica Fuck yeah.

 

[unokitty]

... during his 2008 campaign, Obama referred to Iraq as “the wrong war” and Afghanistan “the right war.” And to that end, he announced in 2009 that he would send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the latter...

Despite the drawdown, Americans are still dying in Afghanistan. In fact, more than twice as many U.S. troops have been killed there under Obama’s leadership (1,629 in four-plus years) than under Bush’s (630 in seven-plus years).

Afghanistan today is much more violent than when Obama came into office. Fewer Americans may be dying. But many more Afghan civilians are being killed, according to U.N. statistics. More guns, more warlords, more militias—that’s Obama’s probable legacy. It’s what happens when you can’t deal with reality and commit one way or the other in wartime—you lose.

Call that change if you want.

To me though it looks like Obama is just more of the same.

Uno

 

[Meghan54]

Call that change if you want.

To me though it looks like Obama is just more of the same.

Uno

When did Obama start what could be considered an illegal, ill advised war? How many American lives were lost there?

 

[ivwshane]

When did Obama start what could be considered an illegal, ill advised war? How many American lives were lost there?

Don't even bother, the guy is a troll. Hell, he's posting George bush v Obama propaganda crap in a jeb bush thread, I don't think he even knows what's going on.

 

[Jhhnn]

Call that change if you want.

To me though it looks like Obama is just more of the same.

Uno

Incredibly lame. The course in Afghanistan was set by 7 years of ham handed Neocon ineptitude prior to Obama taking office.

Stay the course or cut & run, with Righties whining piteously & blaming Obama either way.

History has consequences. See if you can pretend your way around that.

 

[Jhhnn]

BTW: Most people who favor a strong military do so under the belief that having one means you're less likely to be attacked/get in a war. So, this is opposite of what you appear to think.

The problem with that is that sooner or later a bunch of damned fools will have it at their disposal for other purposes. Obviously, that eventuality already came to pass during the Bush years.

In their eyes, there's no point in having a big gun if you can't shoot it.

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?page=3

Neocons openly advocate military aggression & will engage in it again given the opportunity. The only way to stop them in the long run is to reduce our military superiority to change the calculus of War.

Obviously, Jeb intends no such change. He rather wants to take it in the other direction.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

i dont know what anyone would want another bush or clinton in office

 

[hal2kilo]

Sizable donation from Northrop Grumman on the way

and Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and L3.

 

[unokitty]

When did Obama start what could be considered an illegal, ill advised war? How many American lives were lost there?

President-elect Barack Obama says that Afghanistan is "the right war." "It's time to heed the call ... for more troops," Obama said in late October, ... "That's why I'd send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan." He's coupled that with tough talk about hitting Al Qaeda anywhere, including next door in Pakistan. "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act, and we will take them out," ... "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush Al Qaeda."

As Commander in chief, Obama made the decision to continue the war.

Idolize Obama if you want. But everyone knows that the war couldn't go on without Commander-in-chief Obama's permission.

Then again, if Obama stopped the war it might have a negative effect on his political party's ability to raise funds from the defense industry.

Uno

 

[Jhhnn]

As Commander in chief, Obama made the decision to continue the war.

The war couldn't go on without Obama's permission.

You are welcome to idolize Obama if you want.

But this old dog soldier thinks that it is disingenuous to imply that Commander-in-chief Obama is not responsible deaths of American Military Personnel during his time in office...

Uno

Your opinion poll merely illustrates the level of denial among Americans wrt Neocon military adventurism. If you can keep on believing in a lie, then you never have to figure out why you believed it in the first place, never have to examine the workings of your own mind. It's a standard feature of middle class conservative headsets, about a lot of things. More than anything else, they hate to admit that they've ever been wrong about anything.

So they don't, regardless of the facts. Their leadership depends on it.

Of course Obama is responsible for the ongoing situation in Afghanistan, much the same way that Truman was responsible in WW2.

Your point is what, exactly? Are you offering that we should have withdrawn back in 2009, or just venting some Obama hate?

 

[unokitty]

Since October 2001 when hostilities first broke out Afghanistan, the defense industry has spent more than $1.5 billion on lobbying in Washington.

The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry

It’s far too soon to tell how the American escalation in the sprawling, complex mess unfolding in Iraq and Syria will play out. But this much is clear: As our military machine hums into a higher gear, it will produce some winners in the defense industry.

Lots of money to be made during wartime.

I get it that Obama finds it politically expedient to extend the war. That enables him to redistribute more government funds to the defense industry. In return, defense industry can give more to Obama's political party in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions.

That is what politicians do, isn't it?

I just don't think that soldiers should die because Obama finds it politically expedient.

You're free to think otherwise.

Uno

 

[dank69]

Since October 2001 when hostilities first broke out Afghanistan, the defense industry has spent more than $1.5 billion on lobbying in Washington.



Lots of money to be made during wartime.

I get it that Obama finds it politically expedient to extend the war. That enables him to redistribute more government funds to the defense industry. In return, defense industry can give more to Obama's political party in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions.

That is what politicians do, isn't it?

I just don't think that soldiers should die because Obama finds it politically expedient.

You're free to think otherwise.

Uno

No no no no no. You are getting your talking points mixed up. Obama withdrew from Iraq too early, remember? That's why it is all messed up. Try to keep up, mmkay?

 

[sportage]

If anyone needs reminding of what a Bush is all about, especially now that Jeb is re-testing the publics memory, just watch or re-watch that documentary INSIDE JOB.
I think its still on Netflix.
An elephant never forgets, but voters tend to.
INSIDE JOB.
Nuf said...

 

[Jhhnn]

Since October 2001 when hostilities first broke out Afghanistan, the defense industry has spent more than $1.5 billion on lobbying in Washington.



Lots of money to be made during wartime.

I get it that Obama finds it politically expedient to extend the war. That enables him to redistribute more government funds to the defense industry. In return, defense industry can give more to Obama's political party in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions.

That is what politicians do, isn't it?

I just don't think that soldiers should die because Obama finds it politically expedient.

You're free to think otherwise.

Uno

Yeh, we get it- it's all Obama's fault. Everything.

Not that you ever openly advocate withdrawal, of course. You'd rather just shift the blame. That's convenience.

 

[boomerang]

Is this the guy you want to lead on where our military should be? And doing?

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8064723/jeb-bush-awkward



#2 is just perfect though - speaks to how much of a fear mongering dolt he is. ISIS,... under a quarter of a million fighters,.. holy shit.

How does Jeb pronounce "corpsman"? That will seal it for me.

 

[ivwshane]

What does unokittys post have to do with the topic at hand?

I'd like to know before I report him.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How does Jeb pronounce "corpsman"? That will seal it for me.

If he calls them Pecker Checkers all will be good.

 

[unokitty]

Unlike Obama, I don't think that the war is over until the troops come home.

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

If you want to support Obama and his war, that's your decision.

Nonetheless, if you want to say that Commander-in-chief Obama isn't responsible for the deaths of the people that he has sent to his war, then I think that that is disingenuous.

Uno