A new Danger Room entry at Wired Magazine looks into the lies behind the Obama Administration claims about the “danger” posed by military budget cuts, including the idea that cutting military spending to inflation-adjusted 2007 levels (a level unrivaled by any other nation in the history of mankind, except for the US in 2008 and beyond) would somehow leave the American military woefully underpowered.
Kind of a simple answer: the military, if it wants to continue spending, for example, 20 billion dollars per year air-conditioning tents in hot countries, should get their money from the parasitical financial oligarchs, not the little people. Can't get blood from a stone.. or a state which has been bled dry. The military–these chaps are armed to the tits after all–should go after the loot stolen by the oligarchs.. the trillions of dollars ripped off from the little people by corrupt politicians. The oligarchs have shipped the wealth overseas? So what. The military has bases all over the world.. and those tiny virtual states that provide money-hiding and money-washing for the big thieves are, let us say, no match for the Mighty Machine of the US military-intelligence sector.
Not "do-able"? Why not? Fleecing the 30 ought to be a hell of a lot easier than fleecing the 300 million, yes?
Tens of thousands of nukes and they're "afraid" of anyone getting ONE should the gravy train be scaled back? What this tells me is that what they have said they needed in the past was all a lie. Why? Because they've proven that their deadly, and expense, toys cannot protect us. The evil absurdity of it all.