Americans Oppose U.S. Intervention In Syria’s Civil War

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -days.html


Missile strikes on Syria 'in days': Britain and US to hit back after Assad's nerve gas massacre


David Cameron and Barack Obama discussed plan in 40-minute phone call
They are now expected to finalise details within 48 hours
Want to send warning to dictator Bashar Al-Assad over deaths of 1,300



dailymail.co.uk

By JASON GROVES

PUBLISHED: 17:31 EST, 25 August 2013

Conservative Voice wrote: Fred, I never mentioned defense spending as a percent of GDP -- YOU DID. All I said was the military industrial complex is getting richer. You changed the goal post to percent of GDP.

Do you really think mililtary contractors are getting poorer?

Much like "progressives" want to talk about dollars, not percentage, when raging against the profits earned by corporations who engage in certain businesses. It's an old, and ineffective, ploy CV, a way of using figures to lie about the actual state of things in an effort to support a flawed premise.

Would you like me to point out just how flawed that metric is as a means of measuring anything? Consider this. According to the Congressional Reserach Service report, the spending on the 10 largest welfare programs has grown, in inflation adjusted dollars, by 378% over the last 30 years. The entirety of defense spending has yet to double over that same period of time according to the graph you have provided. What does that tell us CV? Not much, really, in either instance.

Want another example? In inflation adjusted dollars a brand new Ford Mustang would cost $17K, not $22K, but then the Mustang today is a lot more car today than it was in 1965 too. So yes, in inflation adjusted dollars, the cost of a Mustang has risen compared to the 1960's, but you are not comparing apples to apples in that comparison either, and the same is true with regards to military spending.

Overall, I would say our military forces today are much more capable of handling a wider variety of missions than they could back when we were spending fewer dollars on significantly inferior systems. We have fewer aircraft in the skies, fewer ships on the seas, fewer men and women in uniform and yet our military is still far more capable than it was in 1962. Just like the Ford Mustang, it costs more even accounting for inflation than it used to, but we get a lot more bang for our buck than we did back then too. You can't compare one metric and one metric only CV, unless, of course, one is trying to intentionally deceive in an effort to support a flawed premise or to try and conflate two things which are not anything close to being equivalents, as you are doing here.

If you think the military industrial complex is making obscene profits, please go check their annual reports. I have stock in General Dynamics and Halliburton and they make money but not even 10% on the dollar. Please move beyond the tired talking points you are handed.
And some military contractors actually lose money and go out of business.

Back on topic.

So we got on one side President Assad, an ally of Russia and Vladimir Putin, former KGB colonel. And negotiating for our side, Barack Obama, former community organizer, who looks tougher? Oh wait, John Horse-Face Kerry is saying the evidence is in and Assad's troops did use chemical weapons. When will the cruise missiles and drones start flying? Will they go to the UN first? Think Russia will veto that?