Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is an undeniable fact: Obama is substantially increasing US military spending, by at least $21 billion from Bush-era levels, including a significant ratcheting up of Afghanistan war spending, as well as more money for unmanned attack drones, which are increasingly being used in attacks on Pakistan. (David Swanson over at AfterDowningStreet.org does a great job of breaking down some of the media coverage of this issue across the political spectrum).
Obama's budget of $534 billion to the Department of Defense "represents roughly a 4-percent increase over the $513 billion allocated to the Pentagon in FY2009 under the Bush administration, and $6.7 billion more than the outgoing administration's projections for FY 2010," bragged Lawrence Korb, author of the Center for American Progress' report supporting Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, in an article called, " Obama's Defense Budget Is on Target."
Obama and his neoliberal think tankers clearly didn't think much of Rep. Barney Frank's call earlier this year to cut military spending by 25% to pay for urgently needed social programs and economic aid to struggling Americans. "To accomplish his goals of expanding health care and other important quality of life services without ballooning the deficit," Frank said, Obama needed to reduce military spending. "If we do not get military spending under control, we will not be able to respond to important domestic needs." Well, not only is overall military spending on the rise, but Obama is about to ask for billions more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a "supplemental" spending bill, the type which were staples in Bush's campaign to mask of the full military budget and total cost of the wars. Obama could seek the funding as early as Thursday.
Hence, not a liberal. By this logic Dick Cheney is a liberal and other absurd conclusions.
Liberals dont support imperialism.
Are you dense?
Liberal, neocon, and conservative are three different things.
And I never said that liberals support imperialism, but neocons do.
Neocon - a liberal on domestic affairs (favoring spending, government expansion, welfare, etc.) and who also favors an aggressive interventionist foreign policy.
They were/are neocons. They most certainly aren't conservatives. If Bush was a conservative he wouldn't have expanded government the way he did. He wouldn't have engaged in nation building. He wouldn't have spent billions of dollars on domestic and FOREIGN welfare. These are not things that a conservative would approve of, let alone advocate and brag about.
You do realize that conservatives and neoconservatives are not even close to being the same thing, don't you?
Both the 'Conservatives' and the 'neo-conservatives' approved of the war in Iraq, the single most important policy of the Bush presidency. That makes them pretty close to being the same thing in my book.
We DON'T have to police the world. We have enough troubles at home and we need to clean up our own house first. This is non-partisan..this is about America.
When are you running for president? You'll get my vote.
Liberal, neocon, and conservative are three different things.
And I never said that liberals support imperialism, but neocons do.
Neocon - a liberal on domestic affairs (favoring spending, government expansion, welfare, etc.) and who also favors an aggressive interventionist foreign policy.
Is it really that hard to understand?
Only because I understand English.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fp1978
A neocon is liberal who believes in strongly asserting domestic interests in foreign lands through economic and/or military means.
Both the 'Conservatives' and the 'neo-conservatives' approved of the war in Iraq, the single most important policy of the Bush presidency. That makes them pretty close to being the same thing in my book.
If that is your sole basis of determining who is a neocon then apparently you believe that Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and many other liberals, also voted for the war authorization. I guess that makes them the same thing as every other neocon
Robert Gates has confirmed what many in the Pentagon such as Gen Moseley have warned will 'undermine national defense and America's ability to fight future wars against great powers such as Russia, China, India, and even Europe. Gates will reconfigure the military into an expeditionary force ready to fight counterinsurgency wars around the globe.The British preferred the term colonial warfare.
At a time when the U.S deficit went over $1 trillion dollars during the first half of 2008. We have defense spending which will rise by 4%. This at a time when the Afghan and Iraq war will cost over $200 billion this year. No wonder defense stocks have been rising in the market.
The Afghan and Iraq war are the primary beneficiaries of the Pentagon's budget. 50 more reaper and predator killer drones will be purchased. Over 500 F-35 strike aircraft will be purchased to join the effective $140 million dollar stealth F22's currently bombing civilian collateral damage in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The army loses heavy combat vehicles and artillery systems, the navy one of its 11 carriers and several hi-tech destroyers, and gain coastal combat vessels for shallow water operations like pirate hunting.
At least plans for $12 billion dollars worth of designer presidential helicopters have been postponed.
This new strategy confirms what many suspect, that the Obama administration's plan is to engage in long term war strategies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia? and anywhere near oil deposits.
The $808 billion dollar 'war on terror' has a new nickname, the 'overseas contingency operations'.
So while the administration is chasing third world restless natives, it chooses to ignore more serious concerns such as China's 2,000km range Df-21 missiles designed to take out carriers using satellite, drone, or radar. Russia's 300kph Shkval torpedo, and the Russian-Indian supersonic Brahmos 300 km range anti-ship missile. All of these are designed to take out U.S navy carriers the backbone of America's power projection.
Obama should take heed of the Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair who warns the greatest danger to American sovereignty isn't ragtag muslims but the eroding of the economy.
Its jsut the really of rewthoric and the responsiblity to protect the country that commander and chief requires. That is the first responsiblioty of the entire governamnt;protect teh counrty. We are not taklikng polcie action here at all;we are talking military action. The UN does the police action by those peace keeper missions that have become such a joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
