Nothing "irrational" about spending more than the rest of the world combined, if you're in the business of world domination.
No such assumption is required. Once one is in such a business, it becomes rational to spend a lot, since the consequences of failing to do so can be problematic. If you find yourself having to resort to "irrationality" to explain the output of a huge beaurocratic process with myriad analysts and auditors and so on, you probably aren't putting enough effort into your analysis. There are systemic, comprehensible causes for these outcomes which provide much more insight than does writing off the whole thing as some exercise in inscrutible madness. Although, let's note that this defense budget is tens of billions less than Obama requested, which itself was tens of billions less than last year's total. So we're still talking about nearly $100 Billion in reduced defense spending, in a year-on-year sense.
Oh, that's reassuring...neither am I.:crazy: But you assume the entire military would remain loyal to a US government bent on enforcing a police state at home. While we raise 'em jingoistic here, I think our soldiers would start to have serious problems with rounding up large numbers of their fellow citizenry. The police have an us vs them mentality that's easily harnessed to do this...I'm not thinking that large swathes of our military and national guard do. So...there's no telling what's going to happen, honestly. Best prepare for lots of eventualities.
Nothing specific to "our soldiers" required there. It's totally normal and expected that armies do not like to be turned on their own citizens, and that such requires either extreme circumstances (outbreak of civil war) or the cultivation of ruthless, well-armed and ideologically committed "vanguard" forces which are charged with forcing the army to carry out such orders, typically through brutal means ("you shoot those protestors, or I shoot you!"). Note that the latter have been a pervasive fixture of repressive regimes, whose main internal threat is from populist coups launched by their "own" militaries. Recently, the "vanguard" forces of Qaddafi were on full display, and Assad's cronies are rather active in trying to hold together the Syrian military right now.
Yes, I hear that there is already a veterans movement to form an anti-government militia if the bill is passed. The code word is Battlefield America: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/29/battlefield_america_us_citizens_face_indefinite Not sure how vigilante justice is supposed to make things better and what the response of the US "justice" system will be to "insurgents" armed or otherwise, but we'll hold onto the panic signboards for the moment Yeah it seems there is one born every century. Empires overextend, turn their people into poor citizens under military rule and then die. Well thats a relief
I expect that will happen here too. But we do have a huge domestic coal supply, a large supply of nuclear weapons, and a renewable supply of rightwing millenialist nutters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think quad, or someone, mentioned it, but the Administration is against this bill and would probably veto it (but mostly for the wrong reasons): http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/05/misreading-the-fight-over-military-detention/
... http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/12/05/defense-authorization-bill-still-savages-the-constitution/ So...the question is...do we trust the presidency with the power to have anyone locked up indefinitely for any reason? They already have done it unofficially, and I'm not happy. According to this blogger at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...est-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/
I don't think that the "distinct nations" bit has any relevance. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the US Civil War, without transforming the USA into a permanent military dictatorship. Likewise, the wars in question are as "declared" as wars get these days. The main concern should be with whether the hostilities are finite in time. If there's an expiration date on this stuff that's one thing, but in the context of a permanent war it's much more problematic.
BS It doesn't use that terminology at all. Indeed the language in the Bill is VERY clear. It doesn't extend to US Citizens.
Maybe once it did, but 9/11 proved it has nothing to do with either of those things. So all it has to do with is how you deal with Prisoners you acquire in Combat operations. And like every country everywhere, you detain them until the Hostilities are over. Tough luck for these guys but it's not our problem that Al Qaeda won't stop their declared war and fighting agains us. They could you know. But until they do, there is little reason to turn these guys back over to them to fight against us some more.
On full display only in the eyes of Western Media. I am sure you are aware that both Gaddafi did, and Assad is, facing significant elements of armed insurrection? Also not on full display by the Western Media was the grotesque murders of pro Gaddafi troops and black Africans by the Western backed NTC.
Nothing at all barbaric about holding prisoners of war until the hostilities are over. Indeed doing so helps you to enjoy your future.