Are America's armed forces too costly?
462476
I would say yes. 504 Billion next year budgeted, that's 40% of the world's military budget. Throw in our Allies ,like Britain and NATO, and it jumps to 70% of the world's military budget. OOOh, everyone is so worried about China, they're spending 39 Billion on their military next year. Let's say that's a conservative estimate and double it, China won't spend 200 billion on their military until 2025!
141801
Yes.\nIt cost thousands of lives,hundreds of billions of dollars,\nand lowered the standing of the U.S. in the international\ncommunity. Even when the war ends there will be a cost-the\npeace of mind of many who served,suffering from post-traumatic stress.\n All of this to confiscate Weapons of Mass Destruction that\nnever existed.\n Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake.
577964
I have to agree that we aren't doing the right thing by waging wars we can't 1) afford, 2) justify, 3) support as a nation. We spend $100 Mil in Iraq, why?  Why even go over there?  \n\nLet's spend that amount of money on improving the New Orleans levies, AIDS research, Cancer research, improving the welfare system so people can't take advantage of it, create more scholarships for people of ALL races, improving ghettos, law enforcement for larger cities, redesigning FEMA, lessen the national debt, put up a wall between us and Mexico, etc.  \n\nLet's go into countries that actually pose a threat to us or someone else.  There are several African countries that have worse leaders than Hussein that we could go into.  We could send the same number of troops we sent to Iraq to actually find Osama - he and all of Al Qaeda are much more dangerous to us than Saddam.  If the UN don't think we should go to another country we shouldn't go.  That's why the UN exists.  \n\nMost Americans were for us going into Afghanistan, but about half were against Iraq, another 10% or so didn't have an opinion.  Why was I against it?  1) there were no weapons of mass destruction that we could prove, 2) we still haven't found Osama, 3) Saddam is a butt hole but there are worse leaders in this world than him,  4) They posed no threat to us. \n\nI think that our military should be protecting us not starting fights with everyone.  Our economy is weak, no matter what the numbers look like, it is unstable at best.  We are losing the technology battle.  We don't do well making cars.  We need to get people with oil interests out of Washington.  So yes, we are destroying ourselves and the military is leading the effort.
302278
Payments to ghost employees. Contractors overcharging by hundreds of millions of dollars on no-bid contracts. And billions in reconstruction money gone missing. The list of reasons for an Independent War Profiteering Commission just keeps on growing.\n\nThe Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) disputed $263 million in charges from Halliburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown and Root for its $2.41 billion no-bid contract. Normally, the Army withholds between 55 to 75 percent of the monies flagged by the auditors.\n\nSo what did the Army do in this case? It withheld 3.8 percent of the payments. Yes, you read that correctly, 3.8 percent – meaning it paid all but $10 million of the charges in question despite the alleged corruption. This just Halliburton, so many others are making huge profits of this war! Makes you wonder??   \nWorld > Terrorism & Security\nposted January 10, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.\n\nReport: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion\nNew study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded soldiers.\nBy Tom Regan | csmonitor.com\nA new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2 trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.\n\n    "Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs. "We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."\n\nThe higher $2 trillion amount takes a 'moderate' approach. Both figures are based on the projection that US troops will remain in Iraq until 2010, with steadily decreasing numbers each year. The economists also used government data from past wars, and included such costs as the rise in the price of oil, a larger US deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the war, the loss to the economy from injured veterans who cannot contribute as productively as they would have done if not injured, and the increased costs of recruiting to replenish a military drained by repeated tours of duty in Iraq. These are items which are almost never included by the US government when determining the cost of the war.\n \n  \n   \n\n   \n  \n \n\nBefore the war started, Mitch Daniels, then the White House budget director, had said the war would be an "affordable endeavor" and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as "very, very high." What a joke, if the American public was told this at the begining what would they have done? It sounds like they knew and covered it up as always!!!
546633
it isn't down.  Air Force and Navy are overmanned and are looking to trim their ranks.  Army and Marines are meeting their overall goals, although there are certain areas where they still need manpower.
1183184
I am headed to Iraq in October, and I can tell you that I have spent close to $1000 already on equipment. Things like a good GPS, better boots, socks and t-shirts than the Army supplies, knee and elbow pads, communication equipment, modifications for my rifle (scopes and slings), pistol holsters, etc.\n\nIt is not that the Army equipment is not good - it is, and for the most part, it helps keep soldiers alive. It is just that it could be better. And it takes forever and a day to field new equipment in the Army. Almost everyone headed over will search for lessons learned in Iraq and read what is REALLY needed over there. And soldiers will spend money to be in comfort or have equipment that works better.\n\nSo, I don't blame the government, and I don't think it is an outrage. I have been in for 15 years, and it has always been the same. No matter what the Army has, someone will sell one that is bigger, better or more durable. It the nature of and the beautiful thing about capitalism.   :-)\n\nEDIT: reichman2007 - You liberal commie (yeah, I read a lot of your hateful, anti-American answers), it has NOTHING to do with the current or any administration. We did the same thing under your god - Bill Clinton. He did a lot of things wrong and was about the crappiest Commander in Chief most military members can ever think of, but it wasn't his fault there was better equipment out there. It is the nature of capitalism ... when someone invents or builds something, someone will come along and make a better one. The Army can't keep replacing equipment just because something newer comes out. Your taxes would be at 90% then ... or maybe that would just make you happy.
1051187
It isn't that democrats are weak on defense but they aren't willing to spend $$$ that republicans demand we put into defense but all of this over-spending hasn't made us any safer. More money does not equal a stronger defense considering republicans throw the money into totally useless and irrelevant military projects that do not counter today's threats. \nThe fact of the matter is that 3,000 Americans died on Bush's watch and hundreds of marines were slaughtered in Lebanon during Reagan and these administrations were supposedly "tough" on defense just because they spent more. However history said otherwise.
274409
Battleships are very expensive, I think they cost like 50 Billion dollars, We lost like 300 of them
1137496
Of course not!  So many military families have to be on WIC that they have offices on base housing.  Most of us, live paycheck to paycheck.  My husband and I can't even afford to buy me glasses!  The jobs we do in the military, we can get paid about 5 times as much in the civilian world.  We don't do it for money though.  We do it because we love this country and we want our children to know freedom.
493639
It is because there is too much money to be made by the warring faction.  War is BIG business.
63561
Well the military at the lower levels have never had much in the way of a budget.  Don't get me wrong the military gets a few hundred million for missiles and large weapons.  But still have hard time stretching the budget far enought to purchase things like paper, pens, toner cartridges and toilet paper.
793563
No enough, and by a far margin.  If only 1/10 of what is being spend on armament would be devoted to space, NASA would be swimming in money.\nIn 2005, NASA budget was $16.2 billion (see link #1) and compare that to the spending of US army in Iraq: $3.9 billion per month in 2003 ($1 billion per month in Afghanistan -- see second link) and that was in 2003!  US military spending is over $400 billion per year, and that is to *not catch*  Bin Laden.
955847
A Huge Chunk Of Our Tax Payers Money Goes Into The Defense Funding...\n\nSo Pay Your Taxes Regularly.... Pay Now Play Save.....
1008857
The US military is certainly the most advanced and superior in the world.  However, the same was true for the British army in 1776.  It sometime comes down to a matter of will and determination and the willingness to make tremendous sacrifices (imagine millions of casualties).  I don't know if the US population is as prepared for this as it could be.  Not to be generalizing, comfort, lifestyle and convenience has less value in China than in the US and they certainly have many more people to sacrifice in a war.\n\nIt doesn't help matters that we purchase so much of what we consume from them (speaking of China) and that we owe them trillions of dollars as part of our national debt.  This puts us in a vunerable position economically. In 20 years when the oil really starts to run out, it may be in their interest to "put us in our place", and will use every means possible, I believe.
520347
no the us cant afford it at all we are in two wars already and in too much debt so no
472612
Toooo much,and its all tax payers money,and its not only money ,they give them political, technological & military support that worth more than money.\nactualy,the invasion of Iraq and the bilions spent in it was all for the sake of Israel,and also taken from the us taxpayers,\nI think that americans work to pay for israel to be happy:)
358196
I don't know about Armed forces, but anyone can call them up and join.   I've used them for years and they are first rate in service and the lowest prices by far.  They do advertise on TV, just not as much as a Geico.