@ orathaic

"Incitment of radical Islam does what for international stability again?"

We're not inciting anyone or anything. And if we are, it's American liberals that are responsible. We're talking about a religion that punishes homosexuality and adultery with death. Our ultra-tolerance and declining morals are pissing them off more than any US base ever could.

"Leading the charge making it hard for countries like Egypt to control radical Islam with the more moderate Islam?"

Could you please clarify something specific that you are referring to?

"After decades of the US supporting anti-communist dictators in South America and Africa"

That seems to be siding with freedom right there. Name one country that has practiced communism without being at the far end of the authoritarian/anarchy spectrum.

"an Iraqii dictator against an Iranian populist"

Hm. Interesting use of the word "populist". Are you referring to the same theocratic "populist" that did nothing to stop a bunch of terrorists from storming the American embassy in Tehran? I'm not saying the Shah was a saint, but he was better than that other asshole.

"not to mention south-east asia (cause i don't know enough history to detail it)"

That's okay. I know a little bit about SEA. Korea? We fought hard on behalf of South Korea against communist aggressors. Vietnam? We fought hard on behalf of a free nation that was also threatened by communism.

"When you support a tyrant in Saudi Arabia, with military aid which is used to put down their own people, Saudi muslims get pissed off with America"

The Saudis are screwing us over with their oil prices. Because the left refuses to let us pursue energy independence, we have no choice but to cozy up with that tyrant.

"Who defends the worlds oceans? I don't know, but considering there is only one part of the world which is suffering from major piracy, i'd guess every stable nation in the world with a reasonable coastline and has an interest in trade defends the worlds oceans."

Sure, everyone chips in to keep the oceans safe, but you and I both know that the US Navy, as the world's largest blue-water fleet, does most of the work.

"Leading the charge making it hard for countries like Egypt to control radical Islam with the more moderate Islam?"

'Could you please clarify something specific that you are referring to?'

I'm not referring to anything specific, I'm highlighting (or trying to) that there are moderate countries, like Egypt, and when you lead a crusade against Islam, people in those countries are pushed towards the extreme.

"After decades of the US supporting anti-communist dictators in South America and Africa"

'That seems to be siding with freedom right there. Name one country that has practiced communism without being at the far end of the authoritarian/anarchy spectrum. '

China today? now name one Africa dictator which has been supported by the US who has been at the far end of the authoritarian/anarchy spectrum.

Or one Africa leader whom the US has supported and wasn't a dictator.

@Gunfighter:
A) Terrorists are covert. It's like trying to hunt for a needle in a haystack. Sure it hurts when it pricks you, but you have to do a *lot* of work to find the needle in the haystack, using the conventional method of search-and-destroy. I would argue that spending a fraction of money on better intelligence would be better (e.g. buy a metal detector for the haystack). US intelligence officials had gotten wind of a airplane hijack scheme before 9-11 occurred, but they dismissed it and the towers fell. Bin Laden was not defeated in a siege. He was caught by US intelligence, then Obama sent the SEALs. You don't need to have an army worthy of 2 full-scale wars to support a commando unit.
B) The fact that the US spends 26% of government spending on the military doesn't make it a constructively used 26%. The Soviets had workers dig holes and fill them in to artificially boost GDP and employment - that definitely worked, except it was not constructive. How is building machines designed to get destroyed intentionally more constructive than getting sick people better or better preparing the next generation?
C) And why is Canada not expecting a (conventional) attack soon? Because...it isn't worth it to go across an ocean to attack it by force? Same for the US. As I said, terrorist attacks are covert, and a large army is not necessarily going to defeat them, especially *before* the attack occurs which is when you want to stop them.
D) I will concede that the US Government is really inefficient at health and education, and that it is more efficient at maintaining an army. Doesn't mean that it should therefore take money from health and education and put it in defence. You don't do something because it's efficient, you do something because it's useful. A case could be made for the government spending less on the whole, and leaving health and education to the private sector (and of course taxing less so people could purchase the services from companies instead). e.g. The US needs $400m in defence, $400m in health, and $400m in education, but since the government sucks at providing the $800m worth of health and education it should just stick to spending $400m in defence and not spend any on health or education. There is no case to be made for spending $1200 on defence because hey that $800m in health and education isn't working, so let's spend that on even more defence instead.

@ orathaic

"I'm not referring to anything specific, I'm highlighting (or trying to) that there are moderate countries, like Egypt, and when you lead a crusade against Islam, people in those countries are pushed towards the extreme."

I'm not seeing how we're leading a crusade against Islam. If we wanted to lead a crusade against Islam, we damned well could. But we're not. Also, we didn't attempt to prop up Mubarak even though we had supported him in the past.

"China today?"

Yeah. Because China isn't authoritarian at all. Ever heard of the one-child policy?

"now name one Africa dictator which has been supported by the US who has been at the far end of the authoritarian/anarchy spectrum.

Or one Africa leader whom the US has supported and wasn't a dictator."

I can't because A) there probably isn't one and B) if there is one I'm too lazy to look it up.
But living under an authoritarian dictator is better than living under an authoritarian communist dictator.

@ Gobbledydook

"You don't need to have an army worthy of 2 full-scale wars to support a commando unit."

I understand that argument. You are absolutely correct in that we do not need a military of our current size to fight a bunch of terrorists. But conventional wars are not a thing of the past, and we need to be ready for the next one. Every major defense cut in recent American history has been followed by an attack or a war.

"The fact that the US spends 26% of government spending on the military doesn't make it a constructively used 26%. The Soviets had workers dig holes and fill them in to artificially boost GDP and employment - that definitely worked, except it was not constructive. How is building machines designed to get destroyed intentionally more constructive than getting sick people better or better preparing the next generation?"

In simple terms, a large military is much more useful than a government-run healthcare or education systems. It's not just about making war materiel. It's about employing people to make that war materiel and employing servicemen to use and maintain that war materiel. That's the simple answer. I won't insult your intelligence by backing it up with anecdotal evidence.

"And why is Canada not expecting a (conventional) attack soon?"

Because A) Canada is not that important and B) Canada can rely on America for support in the event of an attack.

"Doesn't mean that it should therefore take money from health and education and put it in defence."

I misspoke if I suggested that we should. We should maintain military spending at current levels and possibly raise it a little bit, and completely cut health and education spending and give it back to the people in the form of tax breaks across all sectors.

Some real whoppers in this thread.
“The defense industry is not producing useful output.” Wow! What a stupid statement.
#1-America’s defense establishment provides peace around the world, and with peace comes prosperity. Would South Korea be free to produce Kias and Hyundais if American military might didn’t keep North Korea from nuking or invading the South? Who in Europe would stop North Korea, Germany-France-Great Britain?
#2-The American military produces some of the most competent professional adults in the world.
#3-The United States Navy exerts a control over the oceans of the world unknown by any single nation in history, and the USN uses this power to promote the safe flow of goods and services that allows the global economy to function as efficiently as it does.

Please resist posting something as indefensible and factually unsupportable as “The defense industry is not producing useful output.”

@ TC

I just fucking said most of that.

But I appreciate the backup.

"#1-America’s defense establishment provides peace around the world"
that's just what i was thinking! in fact, they're petitioning the government to provide some "peace" in iran right now!