Slashdot Mirror

- The sequester to cut $50 billion per year out of the defense budget? (With the MIC already down to 4-5% of GDP from 9.3% in 1962?)

"Linking military spending to the GDP is an argument frequently made by supporters of higher military budgets. Comparing military spending (or any other spending for that matter) to the GDP tells you how large a burden such spending puts on the US economy, but it tells you nothing about the burden a $440 billion military budget puts on U.S. taxpayers. Our economy may be able to bear higher military spending, but the question today is whether current military spending levels are necessary and whether these funds are going towards the proper priorities. Further, such comparisons are only made when the economy is healthy. It is unlikely that those arguing that military spending should be a certain portion of GDP would continue to make this case if the economy suddenly weakened, thus requiring dramatic cuts in the military."

— Chris Hellman, The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis (PDF), Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3

As far as I know, there's no group of "stop sending our military to kill browns" that I can give money to.

Actually, there are, but they aren't political parties. One of the longest-running and effective is FCNL, a Quaker lobbying group that's been pushing for a more peaceful stance since 1943. There are also specific candidates you can support on these issues, most notably Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (what's interesting is that they arrive at the same conclusions for entirely different reasons).

Of course, the trouble is that these guys only have morality, justice, religion, and sense on their side, whereas the pro-war side has billions of dollars in defense contractor money.

> Did you also resent having your money taken at gunpoint to go into Iraq? Afghanistan?

Damn right I do! Neither Iraq nor Afganistan have any ambition to invade the US, nor did they ever. We're in Iraq to control the oilfields and to build huge military bases there. We do that to keep telling the Middle East to do our bidding and to create profits for Haliburton and its ilk. We're in Afganistan because US oil companies want to build a pipeline there. Or, at least, they did, before it became obvious that Afganistan will never become the sort of stable country where such a project can succeed. Neither of these goals does anything to enhance my personal safety and security. They're just about the power elite grabbing more power. Why should I pay for that?

> To fund your local fire and police departments?

To fund them to oppress and terrorize us? If you have ever had to deal with the police, you'd swear not to ever, under any circumstances, call them again. And as for the fire department, why should I pay to put out your fire? In most cases, it will have been your own stupid fault for leaving candles around (it's the single major cause of fires).

> To provide clean drinking water in your community?

Clean drinking water is not free. Maybe you don't know that if you live in an apartment, since the landlord pays the city water bill for you. Out in the country many people have their own wells and don't have to pay for water. If the city government did not provide the water service, someone would start a company doing it if it were cheaper to do so than to have everyone install their own well.

> To provide education for the children in your neighborhood?

Who's providing education? The quality of public schooling is atrocious. And with all the government propaganda children are exposed to in public schools, there is no friggin way I'm sending my child there, and I certainly don't recommend anyone else to do so. Instead get together with your neighbors and homeschool your kids. If you stagger your days off, four adults could educate their children while working full time. Your kids will likely have a better relationship with you and be happier too, if you just spend more time with them.

> It is THE COMMUNITY that you live in, that allows for a rule of law, so that when your neighbor
> decides that he doesn't love you as much as he loves his other neighbors and decides that he
> should roll up in your house and take all your possessions in the dead of night, that there
> is a system in place to protect you from that.

Contrary to what you government advocates belive, most people respect private property. I have no interest in robbing my neighbors, and I know they have no interest in robbing me. If you live in a neighborhood where they do, maybe it's time to move.

Furthermore, you don't need an official police force to prevent such things, even if you do decide you need to. Back in the middle ages, a small village in the middle of nowhere would have been able to handle the above situation just fine. The neighbors get together and confront the thief, and he'll probably apologize and never do it again.

If you really want to have a police force, a private police force works much better than a squad of government goons. For an example see the special police of San Francisco; it's a private police force (although it does have official recognition), funded entirely through subscriptions by individuals and business in the area.

> The COMMUNITY is what allows you to live a non-third-world existence.

The lack of excessive population growth is what allows me to live a non-third-world

See also "43 Percent of Your 2007 Tax Dollars Pay for War": http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxDay08.pdf

and "Why does FCNL's budget analysis differ from analyses by some other national groups - and why do they differ from each other": http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2423&issue_id=18

See also "43 Percent of Your 2007 Tax Dollars Pay for War": http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/taxDay08.pdf

and "Why does FCNL's budget analysis differ from analyses by some other national groups - and why do they differ from each other": http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2423&issue_id=18

Don't count out Russia yet as a possible US foe... Most of the Nuclear fuel used by the US Navy currently comes from Russian Nuclear Weapons we purchase and reprocess. They could always choose another buyer...

The Boogie-Man that worries me: China ANGRY...
China will someday become Very Oil-Deprived, Over-Populated, Starving, and desperately needing to maintain their economy with the fruits of Oil. (this could very well happen...)

Realize we are in the middle of what Historians are already calling "The Oil Age".
Even the Big Oil Companies themselves are agreed that the halfway point of "Peak Oil" production is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

The world economy is based on a substance (Oil) that yields 100x the energy used to extract it, and modify it, and market it.
There is NO alternative to Oil other than NUCLEAR that can compete on that ~100x cost/benefit yield concept. When it starts going very scarce wars will happen. This is the nature of man.
I am no expert, but me thinks the 'war in Iraq' and the over 12+ 'permanent' military bases being built there ( http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm ) and the 100+ Acre US Embassy ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ ) are what I call "Prudent Planning".

Like it or not, the world as we know it is built on OIL.
I for one, am glad we have established a new good footing in the middle of old Babylon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon ), because we are going to surely need it in the future when the oil wars REALLY get underway. (And in fact, the US presence being there will likely prevent larger wars and ensure that what wars do occur, will be as small as we can cause them to be. It's the big Picture.

McCain did volunteer and serve and sacrifice in our military for our country with honors during the Cold War.
He will bring to the presidential desk wisdom, knowledge, and experience which no other candidate can begin to claim they have in this election.
The next president Must understand how to lead our military and how utilize it to best protect our economy and people and mitigate larger wars that are very very likely when Oil runs out.

On war, suckers.

From Russia With Love

Subject: Holy Hell They've Gone Nuts - $160 billion More for Iraq!
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2171&i ssue_id=35
Fiscal 2007 War Supplemental Expected to Be Largest Yet:
Pentagon Prepares $160 Billion Request for Iraq War
11/12/2006
CQ TODAY
Nov. 7, 2006

the search must still be ordered through a FISA court judge. It STILL goes through courts in other words.

The fact that the FBI gets an order rubber-stamped by a special secret court specifically set up to grant such stamping, does not change that the process is done without the Constitutionally-required warrants based on probable cause, in violation of state confidentiality laws, and using unconstitutional gag orders.

See this analysis by the FCNL:

Rhetoric: Ms. Comstock noted the requirement for the FBI to receive "a court order," elaborating that FBI agents can obtain business records "only by appearing before the FISA court and convincing it that they need them."

Reality: When the Justice Department says that section 215 requires a "court order," many people assume that the FBI has to produce evidence for a court to weigh, that the FBI has to have probable cause of commission of a crime (past or present), or that the judge can refuse to issue the warrant if the judge doesn't think the evidence justifies issuing the order. None of those assumptions apply to a section 215 application. Normal judicial supervision of the search warrant process is reduced to a rubber stamp of the application's careful preparation by the FBI.

Applications for warrants under section 215 are made to a FISA court judge (a federal judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court without confirmation by the Senate), or to a federal magistrate judge, also especially appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The proceedings are ex parte, meaning that they are obtained without notice to the suspect. The order may not specify that it is issued for the purposes of the terrorism investigation. And, the individuals served with the order and responding to the order are prohibited from informing the suspect or any third party that the order has been served.

Section 215 allows the government to obtain records without probable cause of past or planned criminal conduct. The FBI's application must merely certify that the investigation is relevant to an ongoing investigation. Once this request is presented in the proper format, the FISA judge must then issue the warrant. The judge has no discretion to refuse the FBI's request for a section 215 business records search warrant unless the certification is incomplete.

In addition, the work of the FISA court is all conducted ex parte (without notice to or participation by the other party; only the FBI even knows the court is considering the application). Add to this secrecy the a gag order preventing the business served with the order from telling anyone about the order, and what results is that the people whose records are being searched have no way to defend themselves. For example, they have no way to present an argument to any court that there has been a mistake in identity, or that the search arises solely from protected First Amendment activity.

And further, many people assume that "court proceedings" are monitored by the press and through the press is available for public scrutiny. Again, these assumptions are not true when applied to the FISA court. The FISA "court" is a secret chamber with very different rules and procedures than those most people in the United States associate with a "court." The Justice Department is using familiar language, but with unstated definitions.

It is also important to note that under constitutionally sound procedures, approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, courts and prosecutors have the ability to shield warrants from the view of the suspect in cases where evidence may be destroyed or other security needs are at risk. The Justice Department does not need this tool to safeguard sensitive searches.

>The administration has already put antiwar groups (such as the Quakers, known terrorists all) under surveillance.

Here's a cite about the Quakers.

>What is it about George Bush that makes conservatives want to give him authority unchecked by due process, separation of power, and public scrutiny?

The ones who are not being cut in on the loot may be impressed that President Bush is a messenger from God.

I'm not a conservative but they deserve fair discussion and trutheful description: conservatives are seething about many of this administration's policy decisions, and conservatives would *never* endorse repealing the Constitution.

would be happy to admit my mistake, although i'd request an authenticating source for your numbers?

i might have confused "middle east oil" with "OPEC" oil for starters.

Quick google finds this article that suggests "The U.S. consumes over 25 percent of all oil currently produced globally, imports over half of the oil it now consumes...". This would imply that the US imports no more than say 60% of its oil currently. Given that non-OPEC countries like Canada and Russia and numerous Nordic countries are contributing to the US' supply I think I can stand by my original statement.

US imports more oil than it produces domestically -- yes.
US imports of OPEC oil is about 30% of its dependency -- yes. This was my point.

So what are we to do?

Drop all non-military sanctions. This will not be "rewarding" Saddam Hussein. By allowing people to focus on something other than sheer survival, it will enable the professional middle classes to contemplate political change. Stop delaying or denying Iraq access to books, medical journals, pencils and papers, as the U.N. Sanctions Committee, dominated by the U.S. and the U.K., has repeatedly done.

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

The Pro-choice Democrats she supports are likely to raise her taxes quite a bit more than the pro-life Republicans she is seeking to defeat.

I have to call bullsh*t on this particular myth. In the 22 years since Reagan was elected in 1980 the only time the budget was balanced was when a Dem was president.

The Republicans, despite vociferous claims to the contrary, are much more for big, intrusive, authoritarian government.

I think we can all agree that Republicans are morre likely to spend money on defense. Well, the military represents over 40% of the federal budget alone! (source: FCNL)

The Republicans have had things far too easy for far too long on the tax-n-spend issue. This is the party of corporate welfare, bloated military spending, and intrusive, unnecessary policing of its own citizens (e.g. the 'war' on drugs, which has inflated the prison populations to unprecedented levels in the industrialized world - yes, prisons do cost money).

War Resisters League
American Friends Service Committee
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Education for Peace in Iraq Center
Peace Action
Industrial Workers of the World

NOW IS THE TIME TO OPPOSE THIS WAR! SILENCE IS COMPLICITY!

Not to be insulting, but I think you DO need to visit these places before really knowing what you're talking about. I've been to both Colombia and Ecuador and currently live in Mexico (but AM an American!).

Believe me, it is easy to be cynical being an American living in the U.S. and never leaving the country--except maybe to Cancun or a few other tourist destinations in "safe" places of the world.

But when you've lived in one of these "other countries" for 6+ years, believe me, you will miss the petty problems the U.S. has. It really puts things in perspective.

Massive electoral fraud.

You haven't seen electoral fraud until you've been to Mexico--and they're supposedly "improving."

I'm kind of tired of the whole "Bush family election fraud" conspiracy theory. I know it's a bummer your candidate lost by so little, but he did. Get over it. If there had been fraud I think they would have at least stuffed enough ballots to make the win decisive.

(Sarcasm on) I'm sure Bush and the Republicans planned the butterfly ballots perfectly knowing that exactly X number of idiots wouldn't be able to read it and, thus, get GWB elected (sarcasm off).

Millions of people are in prison over drugs, many rights are suspended simply on unfounded suspicion of drug involvement.

Do you have evidence? If they were involved in drugs then I'm glad they are in prison. Sure, there may occasionally be errors. I do not believe there is any law enforcement conspiracy to wrongfully imprison anyone. What would they gain? Come on, they do their job just like the next guy.

Believe me, I'd rather be stopped by any American FBI, State Police or Local police on a dark road in the middle of a field than by their Mexican or Colombian equiavlent. ANY DAY.

The US on average takes military action against a nation at least once every 2 years, and has kept it up since 1990.

Being the last remaining superpower is a bummer sometimes. I think we got involved in a few conflicts that weren't our business while Clinton was in power. But Iraq? Afghanistan? Totally justified and our interests were threatend.

Corporations seem to be able to buy legislation to suit their needs. Many of the largest scandals are closely linked to the administration: Enron, Savings & Loan, etc.

There are some cases of corporations having too much power. They are vocal.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: If corporations or interest groups have too much power it is because WE THE PEOPLE aren't doing our job and keeping our congress-critters on a leash. We have no-one to blame but ourselves.

One of the only "civilized" nations to still have a death penalty

Yeah, it's so much more civilized to throw them in a dungeon and throw away the key... but pay $50k/year to do it.

The US has used and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Nukes, yes.

There's a pretty good chance the Anthrax mailer got his stuff from US labs (the whole story is actually much scarier, if true).

Yeah, he probably did. Does that bother me? No. It bothers me that he hasn't been caught but I really could care less whether he got it in the U.S. or in Afghanistan.

Depleted uranium shells used in the Gulf War by coalition forces are causing cancer in Iraqi civilians even today.

Link/source?

Law enforcement appears to be largely unaccountable.

Visit the countries previously mentioned. Believe me, you'll praise U.S. law enforcement.

Still no straight answer on what down at Waco Texas and why specific other agencies were involved (such as the Delta Force), but the end result is an entire, seemingly harmless community of Christians is dead.

Yeah, a bunch of harmless Christians with heavy artillery. Unless you buy into the whole conspiracy theory that weapons were placed there after the fact. Which would mean the government killed off that sect because.... why exactly??

Terrorist attacks against the nation take place on an almost yearly basis.

Yearly? I remember the original WTC attack. Then Oklahoma, then the final WTC? Did I miss any others?

Much better than, say, Israel that measures their terrorist attacks by the day or week rather than the year.

No public healthcare, which most other "civilized" nations offer.

You refer to the quasi-capitalist European nations with confiscatory levels of taxation?

I agree we ought to do something about health care for those that don't have insurance. I think we can and will. But a national healthcare system for the entire country? No thank you, I'd rather pay.

More than 50% of the nation's budget is allocated to the military.

50%? Please check that number again. Even these guys (that appear to probably be anti-military) only cite 23.7%.

I would invite you, in all seriousness, to live in a foreign country for a few years. Not Canada. Not the UK. A "typical" foreign country such as Mexico. Believe me, you'll more than appreciate what we've got in the U.S. Big time.