“Well, first of all, the 81% of non-military spending won’t all be cut, for the simple reason that the government *does* have other constitutional roles besides just operating a military.”
So you are saying the government should only spend money on it’s constitutional roles?
“approach is ludicrous and infeasible.”
How so?
“19% chunk of largely useless spending”
When there’s 81 percent of largely useless spending, yes we should concentrate on cutting the 81 percent before the 19.
“the action in Afghanistan *barely* constitutes a “war” “
tell that to the young men and women who have died serving their country that they didn’t die in a ;reaa
“If we have to end the war in Afghanistan to cut it back”
As I said, you wouldn’t know how to win a war. Cut and run.
“Afghanistan is irrelevant to American security interests.”
Just like Bin Laden is irrelevant too, eh?
“Either powerup and kill everybody in the country (’cause that’s basically what you’d have to do to really “win” “
So you don’t believe they can become a friendly democracy.
“The Bill of Rights nowhere calls for a standing army,”
You’re aware of the articles of confederation and how they prohibited the establishment of a standing army? That changed with the Bill of Rights.
If you’re going to call me ignorant, then you’d best get to reading those books you’ve assigned.
Pretty much, yeah. Though it doesn't have to waste money on even those.
When there’s 81 percent of largely useless spending, yes we should concentrate on cutting the 81 percent before the 19.
We should concentrate on cutting *100%* of useless spending. Unfortunately, you appear to be one of those "conservatives" who want to cut the budget - except when your preferred spending program is on the block, then suddenly that becomes hands off.
tell that to the young men and women who have died serving their country that they didn’t die in a war
Pretty pathetic attempt at an emotional argument designed to get around a rational approach to the issue. While tragic, their deaths (which were UNNEEDED) still do not make Afghanistan constitute a real war. We have thousands of young men and women who die each year in the military just due to accidents - does this mean that electrocutions and Humvee accidents constitute "wars"?
As I said, you wouldn’t know how to win a war. Cut and run.
This is just a dumb argument. So we need to stay around in some idiotic hands-off occupation for decades on end because otherwise some idiot-child chest-thumper might accuse us of "cutting and running"? What sort of stupidity is this?
Further, if you think what's going on in Afghanistan constitutes "knowing how to win a war," then you have some serious educational deficiencies that you need to remedy.
Just like Bin Laden is irrelevant too, eh?
Apples and oranges. Even presuming that Bin Laden hasn't been dead since Tora Bora, and has only since been used as a rallying cry for continuing the wars, his importance has had NO relation to operations in Afghanistan since late 2001/early 2002. For most of a decade, the occupation in Afghanistan has been nothing but a rathole down which we're throwing good mens lives and billions in taxpayer dollars.
So you don’t believe they can become a friendly democracy.
Actually, I don't. Besides - you're asking the wrong question. "Democracy" can merely mean a bunch of people with purple ink on their thumbs legally installing Islamist regimes into power. While people like you might pat yourselves on the back in front of a TV camera for it, it really does nothing, well actually WORSE than nothing, to actually stabilise the world situation.
As for whether Afghanistan (or the rest of the Muslim world) is ready for constitutionally limited government and true freedom, the answer is also "no." Those things don't just appear overnight. We have these because we have centuries of experience in building self-government and developing a broad-based philosophical ideology of limited government dating back through the Scottish Enlightenment to Locke and beyond to the Magna Carta. Even in places like Japan and Germany where we "successfully" (and even then, the success is somewhat questionable) implanted democracy, in both of those nations, you had educated elites (often persecuted) who had imbibed a good deal of liberty ideology from our schools, and (more importantly) accepted it themselves.
This same cannot be said for the Muslim world. They simply lack a critical set of liberty values that are necessary to make the kind of stable, rule of law limited government system such as ours possible. You're not going to change that in a decade when there's no underlying foundation upon which to build it.
You’re aware of the articles of confederation and how they prohibited the establishment of a standing army? That changed with the Bill of Rights.
LOL, okay, I'll bite. I'd love to see your attempt to show us how the Bill of Rights authorizes a standing army. This will be interesting, considering what Madison, one of the principle authors of the BoR, said about standing armies,
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Indeed, if there was one thing that the Founders most generally agreed upon, whether Federalist or Anti-Federalist, it was that a standing army was a Bad Thing.
"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?" (Patrick Henry)
"...that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." (Statement of the Virginia Convention for Ratification of the constitution) (you mean they were ratifying a document that contained a provision for something they thought the largest instrument of tyranny available???)
"...that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power." (North Carolina Declaration of Rights of 1776)
"...as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power." (Statement of Pennsylvania's Convention for Ratifying the Constitution)
I mean, these were people who wrote the Declaration of Independence which contained numerous grievances specifically against the uses of standing armies by a tyrant.
The whole point to the 2nd amendment was to provide the general body of the citizenry as a militia, so that we didn't NEED a standing army, and so that we'd be able to BEAT a standing army should one exist and be used for tyranny. Hate to break it to you, but the Founders thought the 2nd amendment was to be used to shoot American soldiers if they got out of line.
Further, the whole point to the 3rd amendment was to limit the ability of the government to use a standing army as a means of oppressing the people, too. Far from being a positive argument FOR a standing army, the 3rd amendment was intended to provide an additional safeguard against such an institution.
Sheesh. Have we learned nothing in the past 230 years?