(but what were they right about?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear#Comedy
Quote
...we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus, and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country?s 24-hour politico?pundit' perpetual panic "conflictinator" did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder.
If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
Most Americans don?t live their lives solely as Democrats, Republicans, liberals or conservatives. Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do. But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.
When the phuck is this man running for president? I mean the man and his words, at least the spirit of them, certainly DO have a very real impact: Olbermann Ends 'Worst Person In The World' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKS7GhYG98)
It's sad when comedians can garner more respect from the thinking masses than many politicos. I guess part of it is media coverage is sort of built in.
The sad thing is that the largest number of voters (people OVER the age of 65) basically all want to scrap health care and something like 80% of them support lunacy like the Tea Partiers.
Here's an idea, shut down even a fraction of the funding to the MASSIVE military-industrial complex and put it into real industry.
A large standing army is a weakness, not a benefit.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 04, 2010, 11:52:07 AM
A large standing army is a weakness, not a benefit.
thats for sure its more likely to make you look like a target, and then you sit around wondering why everyone picks on you.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 04, 2010, 11:52:07 AM
It's sad when comedians can garner more respect from the thinking masses than many politicos.
The reason is cuz those comedians can actually say something TRUTHFUL, something that gets people THINKING... Kinda the opposite of the job description for anyone with power in the political world.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 04, 2010, 11:52:07 AM
A large standing army is a weakness, not a benefit.
So China is the weakest country in the world? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops#List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops#List)
I think what you're getting at is "spending a large amount of your GDP on your military is a weakness", or perhaps "committing your military to many long-term out-of-country assignments is a weakness". If the US simply withdrew all their overseas troops and stationed them in and around the USA, they would spend a lot less on defense. Of course the question then is, what would other countries with large militaries do to fill that void?
If you are spending 58% of everything on military, even giving up a few % should have a BIG impact elsewhere http://www.nenasili.cz/en/3020_proposed-us-discretionary-budget-fiscal-year-2009
ZOINKS!
Hey, Nations Of The World! Let Rome -- oops I mean Yoo Ess Eh -- be a lesson to you! If 58% of your "tax revenue" is dedicated to keeping your nation "safe", maybe you should some devote some energy to figuring out how to reduce the number of ways that your government "representatives" are pissing off other nations and cultures, to the point where you are a target for being attacked... ( HINT: maybe moving some of the 58% into the Education segment (only 7%) will help bring smarter people into the political world thus bringing in new ideas and ways of doing things ... that are less... douchebaggy. )
I look at history as a lesson, specifically World War II. Britain and France's military infrastructure was practically antique (in terms of hardware AND tactics) in 1938 and blow for blow they were hit hard in many battles and campaigns, this was because they were still prepared to re-fight WWI. They spent a great deal in the inter-war years incrementally upgrading for a conflict that would never happen. When the USA joined the scene in 1942 they had only just started gearing up with new machines and tactics to meet the fresh challenges that fighting the Axis powers demanded.
The parallel today is amazing, much of the hardware and tactics maintained by the USA hasn't changed much since BEFORE the 1960s. All the tactics and machinery of war were largely created to fight the Soviets en masse in Eastern Europe or continental North America (not say guerilla jungle fighters or terrorist cells).
I mean I look back to my dads day and think about how pointless saturation bombing was in Vietnam. Thousands of square kilometers of nothing pounded by millions of dollars worth of bombs. Net effect? Nothing!
Same deal today, trying to ferret out terrorists in Afghanistan with tanks and jets is akin to performing brain surgery with a fire axe.
I think the USA would be very fortunate to go to war with China as its the closest thing to an actual foe they are set up to fight there is, there's lots of infrastructure to bomb and a nice big army reliant on slow-moving manpower... I'm sure there are generals who have wet dreams about that potential scenario (it would never happen though thanks to that treaty that makes it "illegal" for two countries bearing nuclear arms to war with each other, indecently the prime motivation behind Iran's nuclear program).
But yeah, getting back to what I was saying before, maintaining a large army has been the crack cocaine of the US Gov't for the last 60 years, now they can't quit because so much of their GDP is tied up in military projects. I'm not saying it will solve their problems but it's a lot of money they don't really have to be throwing around.
And to think, in the 30s they didn't want to get in on the world stage because it might ruin their economy... HAH!