Obama-"strongest military on the planet"

MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
edited December 2008 in A Moving Train
Obama vows US will maintain "strongest military on the planet"

by Staff Writers
Chicago (AFP) Dec 1, 2008

US President-elect Barack Obama vowed Monday to ensure the US military remains the strongest force "on the planet" despite the economic challenges facing the country.

"To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet," Obama said as he unveiled a heavyweight national security team to serve when he takes office on January 20.

"We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security," he said.

Obama was speaking after nominating former first lady Senator Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state and announcing that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would remain as defense secrtary.
----

I tend to think that "Prosperity" at home will mainly come from having the strongest Health care on the planet, the best schools on the planet, the best roads on the planet and so on.

Sure a strong army is good, but would America need such a powerful army if it was not attacking other countries? Overthrowing nations? Taking others countries natural resoucres? Or maybe they need the "strongest military on the planet" to defend themselves of all the jealous people in the world who want to attack America because they hate freedom?

and the thinking that you will have peace abroad by having the strongest military on the planet....well now, wtf?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • OffHeGoes29OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    well who did you vote for?
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    Have absolutely no problem with what was said, None at all.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    It is a good thing that he has plans for our roads, education system, and health care.

    I also do not see anything wrong with maintaining a strong military.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    How much does the strongest military on the planet cost anyway nowadays? How does it ensure prosperity?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Collin wrote:
    How much does the strongest military on the planet cost anyway nowadays? How does it ensure prosperity?
    take every country in the world's military spending and double it. that's about how much.


    prosperity for whom?
  • Pj_Gurl wrote:
    Have absolutely no problem with what was said, None at all.

    Count me in. Sounds ok to me.
    she was underwhelmed, if that's a word
  • Count me in. Sounds ok to me.

    Add me too...
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Collin wrote:
    How does it ensure prosperity?

    I'm curious to know the answer too. Maybe his supporters can help out, rather than just say 'I agree with what he said' and give him a pass.
  • TrailerTrailer Posts: 1,431
    MrBrian wrote:
    I'm curious to know the answer too. Maybe his supporters can help out, rather than just say 'I agree with what he said' and give him a pass.

    What would you have preferred Obama said?

    What country would you rather have as a military power.. China?
    Whoa, chill bro... you know you can't raise your voice like that when the lion's here.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    ants have more soldiers than the US... probably better at fighting as well.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    dunkman wrote:
    ants have more soldiers than the US... probably better at fighting as well.
    maybe true. they don't send arms to other colonies though, especially the really aggressive ones that start shit with others all the time.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    Trailer wrote:
    What would you have preferred Obama said?

    What country would you rather have as a military power.. China?

    I can think of quite a few things keeping and funding the military is not one of them.

    Anyway, back to the question. Any Obama fan want to answer it?

    To whom will 'the strongest military on the planet' bring prosperity? And how will this costly business bring prosperity?

    And surely there must be some Obama fans who don't agree with this at all?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    Collin wrote:
    I can think of quite a few things keeping and funding the military is not one of them.

    Anyway, back to the question. Any Obama fan want to answer it?

    To whom will 'the strongest military on the planet' bring prosperity? And how will this costly business bring prosperity?

    And surely there must be some Obama fans who don't agree with this at all?
    As an ex-obama apologist :
    1 - The use of the term "fan" is pejorative. You're implying that people irrationnaly back barack obama rather than entertaining the possibility that they rationally agree with what he says. Basically, thought is not something reserved for the critics.
    2 - It's easy to see who will the strongest military on the planet bring prosperity to : everyone working for the strongest military on the planet, and all the people gravitating around them. That doesn't mean it's worth it, just saying there clearly are people (and businesses) who access prosperity via this big military thing.

    Now I don't see as impossible for the us the maintain the biggest baddest military on the planet while reducing costs and affecting them elsewhere (like repaying the debt or giving the us a civilized healthcare plan). The current spending is so enormously big that it doesn't really seem that odd to save a few billions and still stay n°1.
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    Kann wrote:
    As an ex-obama apologist :
    1 - The use of the term "fan" is pejorative. You're implying that people irrationnaly back barack obama rather than entertaining the possibility that they rationally agree with what he says. Basically, thought is not something reserved for the critics.
    2 - It's easy to see who will the strongest military on the planet bring prosperity to : everyone working for the strongest military on the planet, and all the people gravitating around them. That doesn't mean it's worth it, just saying there clearly are people (and businesses) who access prosperity via this big military thing.

    Now I don't see as impossible for the us the maintain the biggest baddest military on the planet while reducing costs and affecting them elsewhere (like repaying the debt or giving the us a civilized healthcare plan). The current spending is so enormously big that it doesn't really seem that odd to save a few billions and still stay n°1.

    1. "someone who admires and supports a person, sport, sports team, etc:"

    It doesn't say they support irrationally. Anyway, regardless of the definition your theory certainly sounds good and well thought out, however, it doesn't change the fact it's mere guess work and you are wrong about me and my intentions.

    2. I agree, but not entirely. It's mostly the contractors and businesses that profit the most. The people loose their children.

    3. War is a costly business, Obama intends to fiercely prosecute the war on terror. Anyway, I hope he can cut some costs. I just think he would be able to cut more if he didn't want to pursue the war so eagerly.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • MrBrian wrote:
    Sure a strong army is good, but would America need such a powerful army if it was not attacking other countries?
    Exactly. We don't need to be spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined does...it's crazy. I have no problem with having the strongest military in the world, but it doesn't need to be as big as it is, and it certainly has nothing to do with "prosperity at home". I'm surprised he's stupid enough to try and make such a connection. A strong military provides security, not prosperity.
  • Obama wrote:
    we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests
    Wow...I guess that National Security Strategy from '03 isn't gonna need much revision!
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    Collin wrote:
    1. "someone who admires and supports a person, sport, sports team, etc:"

    It doesn't say they support irrationally. Anyway, regardless of the definition your theory certainly sounds good and well thought out, however, it doesn't change the fact it's mere guess work and you are wrong about me and my intentions.
    Sorry for the misinterpretation then.
    2. I agree, but not entirely. It's mostly the contractors and businesses that profit the most. The people loose their children.
    Before last summer, I would have entirely agreed with you. I would even have said that giving the military money to such fields as health or education could help a lot of people attain prosperity without having to fund such a deplorable enterprise. But this summer my government, in the scope of reducing costs closed several military bases in cities already plagued with unemployement. This basically finished killing off these cities as the military presence (and spending) was the only thing keeping the economy going in these cities. And I found it hard to try and explain to the people looking at a not so promising future that military funding is a mistake.
    I think, as with everything, the military should be a matter of balance.
    3. War is a costly business, Obama intends to fiercely prosecute the war on terror. Anyway, I hope he can cut some costs. I just think he would be able to cut more if he didn't want to pursue the war so eagerly.
    There are many other costs he can get rid off :
    - the ludicrous (and dangerous) 'star wars' program
    - by reinforcing existing alliance, rely more on allies and reduce military presence
    - limiting the scope of the war on terror.
    I doubt we will see the end of this war (especially after the events in india), but maybe some politicians will try to tackle this issue more rationally than the last 7 years.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    MrBrian wrote:
    Obama vows US will maintain "strongest military on the planet"

    by Staff Writers
    Chicago (AFP) Dec 1, 2008

    US President-elect Barack Obama vowed Monday to ensure the US military remains the strongest force "on the planet" despite the economic challenges facing the country.

    "To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet," Obama said as he unveiled a heavyweight national security team to serve when he takes office on January 20.

    "We also agree the strength of our military has to be combined with the wisdom and force of diplomacy, and that we are going to be committed to rebuilding and restrengthening alliances around the world to advance American interests and American security," he said.

    Obama was speaking after nominating former first lady Senator Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state and announcing that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would remain as defense secrtary.
    ----

    I tend to think that "Prosperity" at home will mainly come from having the strongest Health care on the planet, the best schools on the planet, the best roads on the planet and so on.

    Sure a strong army is good, but would America need such a powerful army if it was not attacking other countries? Overthrowing nations? Taking others countries natural resoucres? Or maybe they need the "strongest military on the planet" to defend themselves of all the jealous people in the world who want to attack America because they hate freedom?

    and the thinking that you will have peace abroad by having the strongest military on the planet....well now, wtf?

    what country has Obama invaded....? the reason I ask is you rant on about America attacking other nations and taking resources, yet Mr. Obama has not been sworn in....I agree that the foreign policy of the US has been aggressive in the past, that does not mean Obama will do the same...

    If he had said the US Military was weak, I'd be pretty upset...
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    I think he's right.

    What I love about this is:

    If Bush said this... half of you that said "I see nothing wrong with that" would be bitching. Now that he says it, it's cool. Either way, I think it's good stuff.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    inmytree wrote:
    what country has Obama invaded....? the reason I ask is you rant on about America attacking other nations and taking resources, yet Mr. Obama has not been sworn in....I agree that the foreign policy of the US has been aggressive in the past, that does not mean Obama will do the same...

    If he had said the US Military was weak, I'd be pretty upset...

    Well, if you throw in the things Obama says, some of his views (Russia,Israel,Iran, some of his politics...Then add his recent choices to his admin who are very familiar with war and invasions.

    What other conclusion can one come up with?

    Take this for example, if I start to become friends, or pick friends who are thugs, thiefs...liars and so on. What direction do you think i'm going in? A good one?
  • saveuplife wrote:
    I think he's right.

    What I love about this is:

    If Bush said this... half of you that said "I see nothing wrong with that" would be bitching. Now that he says it, it's cool. Either way, I think it's good stuff.

    :D
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • This is another way of saying expect no expenses to be spared with regards to military spending looking forward.

    and the war machine rolls on.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    This is another way of saying expect no expenses to be spared with regards to military spending looking forward.

    and the war machine rolls on.
    And how does this bother or effect or concern your life as a Canadian?
  • aNiMaL wrote:
    And how does this bother or effect or concern your life as a Canadian?


    You mean how does this affect the world as a whole?

    uuuuhhhh....

    Geeeee I have no idea, and I could never see the connections in a millions years....
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    saveuplife wrote:
    I think he's right.

    What I love about this is:

    If Bush said this... half of you that said "I see nothing wrong with that" would be bitching. Now that he says it, it's cool. Either way, I think it's good stuff.
    Because GW lost our trust with the powers of war when he fucked up so dramatically with respects to Iraq. That doesn't mean any of us are anti-war. Military powers are a very necessary evil in this world.
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    You mean how does this affect the world as a whole?

    uuuuhhhh....

    Geeeee I have no idea, and I could never see the connections in a millions years....
    No, our US expenses that we spend to uphold our strong military, that doesn't effect you at all. As a Canadian you should feel good that we are here to protect you Canadians and are willing to carry that burden.

    How we utilize our military throughout the world is different - this is just talking about maintaining a strong military with or without two wars going on currently.
  • aNiMaL wrote:
    No, our US expenses that we spend to uphold our strong military, that doesn't effect you at all. As a Canadian you should feel good that we are here to protect you Canadians and are willing to carry that burden.

    How we utilize our military throughout the world is different - this is just talking about maintaining a strong military with or without two wars going on currently.

    Well I strongly (strongly) disagree with your opinion, and you're not going to convince me either way of anything on this topic.

    Bush pre-emptive war doctrine keeps playing on the radio.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    aNiMaL wrote:
    Because GW lost our trust with the powers of war when he fucked up so dramatically with respects to Iraq. That doesn't mean any of us are anti-war. Military powers are a very necessary evil in this world.


    You can rationalize your opinion any way you like. If Bush said those words, you'd be upset. But, since Obama said them you are fine. If Bush stayed in Iraq, you'd be upset. But, since, Obama will stay there you'll be fine. It has nothing to do with the tactics, it has to do with the R and the D.

    It's only going to get worse as the similarities between Obama's policy and Bush's policy become more and more apparent. You're going to have to really think about what you really value now. And maybe even,,, (OMG is he really going to say what I think he's going to say?).... part ways with Obama on some issues. (OMG,,... he did say it)
  • KravenKraven Posts: 829
    He never mentioned any war or country explicitly. All he said was military, and trying to make it stronger. He didn't say presence or he is putting more troops places. He said stronger, which implies to me that he wants to spend money on items like armor, better vehicles, recruitment, more R&D, not once are the words Iraq, Afghanistan, war or terrorism mentioned. He has a timetable set up in Iraq that he is going to go over with the generals when they meet, he is not keeping us there.

    He is focusing the war on terrorism on Afghanistan because that's where it should be fought! I don't mind going after these people, they did a horrific thing to our country, I just want to be sure we are going after the right people and not wasting our money or 5(!) years on a war that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the WTC.
    32 shows and counting...
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    saveuplife wrote:
    You can rationalize your opinion any way you like. If Bush said those words, you'd be upset. But, since Obama said them you are fine. If Bush stayed in Iraq, you'd be upset. But, since, Obama will stay there you'll be fine. It has nothing to do with the tactics, it has to do with the R and the D.

    It's only going to get worse as the similarities between Obama's policy and Bush's policy become more and more apparent. You're going to have to really think about what you really value now. And maybe even,,, (OMG is he really going to say what I think he's going to say?).... part ways with Obama on some issues. (OMG,,... he did say it)
    Whoa, i am sick and tired of mother fuckers telling me what I think and why I think things, completely disregarding what I said. It is really starting to piss me off.

    I didn't rationalize any fucking thing. I agreed with you and was telling you WHY I THINK THAT WAY. But you have your head too far up your own ass to read or understand that.

    No, it has nothing to do with a D or an R as you so wish it would. It has EVERYTHING to do with the man at the helm, regardless of his party affiliation. Do you really honestly think that the only reason people do not like the current president is because of his party affiliation? If you really believe that (which you have insinuated that you do), then I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you because you are a fool. George Walker Bush has lost the trust of the American people to hold the keys to the military after the GRAVE fuck ups that are the Iraq war. He has proven that HE cannot be trusted with the young lives of our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mother who sign up to defend this great nation.

    Gates and Obama together will work out a plan to draw down our troops in Iraq in a responsible manner and hand control back to Iraq. I am not a fucking idiot - I do not expect that to happen over night on Jan 20th. It does take time and planning. However, I trust Obama's planning at this point a whole helluva a lot more than GW's, because GW has lost my trust a long fucking time ago. Obama has yet to ruin that trust. If he does, you better believe I will be calling for his head.

    I don't have to think about my values, dude. I do not change them that easily at all. They have held stead fast this long, why would they change? Are you that far up one of the political parties ass that you cannot think for yourself, hence why you are trying to project that mentality onto me?

    I am already parted ways with Obama on a few issues, from the get go. But he still has my support on the majority of the grave issues facing our nation and world. And between he and McCain, Obama held more of my morals and values, not all of them, but most of them. But, I don't know him personally and will have no issue at all rallying against him if he does something that i strongly disagree with. Just like when GW fucked up, that is when I started rallying against him. there was a short time that I was very glad that GW was my president. He quickly ruined that when he invaded a country that had nothi8ng to do with those who attacked us. But that is neither here nor there. We are where we are where GW has placed us and we as a nation need to work together in a bipartisan way to resolve these issues for the future generations of this great country. I believe thus far that Obama has shown the wherewithal to get that done.
Sign In or Register to comment.