Thanks for that, but I have to admit I've got a much more contrary opinion, from attempting to get any and all sources of information, right, left, center and otherwise, over the past 35 years.
The Soviet Union was failing, nothing could have saved it other than a massive Marshall Plan, that scraped Germany up off the floor (and generously funded their economy more than anyone elses in the world). Everything I've read and seen tells me two contradictory things: (1)the US forced them to spend into oblivion, or(2)they would have failed anyway.
When I look at the sources for both opinions, I'm not impressed with their independence. Looking at the early and recent stories from a variety of state-sponsored and non-state-sponsored Soviet reporters, there is no way they could have continued even at a baseline level of 1979.
The military under Clinton was carrying out the "peace dividend" promised by Reagan and Bush, but not as much as was advertized under those previous administrations. Nevertheless, it was fully prepared to accomplish what was asked, in spades. IMO, there is a tremendous over-funding of a lavish and bloated military with more generals than ever, more useless weaponry, and a ridiculous and self-destructive panoplay of brush wars around the world to keep them occupied, but which actually decreased our national security, rather than increased it, by stimulating off-the-shelf spook-sponsored wars blowing back into this country with planeloads of drugs. The solution to a reasonable military preparedness level is a program of national service for all 16-55 year-olds, to educate and train the public on basic homeland defense and what national defense is about, along with an appropriate level of regular unit funding, which is much less than the levels of today. IMO, and military units will disagree violently with me on this, the military and political services is just that, service, and not a way to get rich. American isn't here to serve the military, the military is here to serve the American way of life. That's why it's incredible that someone like Rumsfeld would say, "I can live with that", about constant terrorism threat.
Yes, I fully agree, we don't owe the world a living, or a defense. At least not until we are safe in our cities and our homes. I refuse to believe we should be blackmailed by the likes of Israel, Pakistan, India, Greece, Saudi Arabia, and any of the rest of the warlords, into "gee, give us lots of miney and military, or you will be screwed". F*ck you, and the camel you rode in on. Fix your own problems. We don't have the luxury of charity, until we have a safe homeland again. Saudi and others are the enemy if they support terrorism, and it's unbelievable our administration still kisses their robes.
As far as annihilation of other countries: be careful. Look at what history shows us about annihilation of countries that we don't, or can't occupy. Unless you are suggesting occupation? That's a bad idea. Let them fight among themselves, and once it is clear the US will not supply money and manpower to one side or both, they will learn to solve their problems, much more quickly.
We do not have the solution to their problems.
Period.
Politicians or military people that say we do, have an axe to grind, payoff to collect, and are full of crap. Americans, if they had a chance to vote on these insane acts, would vote that out immediately, if we were represented in the least by that group we call "Congress" |
