Obama-"strongest military on the planet"

MrBrian
MrBrian 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
«13

Comments

  • OffHeGoes29
    OffHeGoes29 Posts: 1,240
    well who did you vote for?
    BRING BACK THE WHALE
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    Have absolutely no problem with what was said, None at all.
  • aNiMaL
    aNiMaL 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.
  • Collin
    Collin 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
  • Commy
    Commy 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?
  • unifiedscene
    unifiedscene Posts: 462
    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
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    unifiedscene wrote:
    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
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian 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.
  • Trailer
    Trailer 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.
  • dunkman
    dunkman 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.
  • Commy
    Commy 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.
  • Collin
    Collin 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
  • Kann
    Kann 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.
  • Collin
    Collin 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
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    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.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    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!
  • Kann
    Kann 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.
  • inmytree
    inmytree 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...
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife 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.
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian 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?

Categories