Winning the war dead ahead

[ScreamingEagle]

How can we address the threat of Iran and others? Can we afford more war?

Mr. Helprin begins with a postulate, which is that the United States has the resources to fight back. But to do this requires a huge investment in military and paramilitary enterprises. The good news is that we have the wherewithal; the discomfiting news, that sacrifices will be needed, and, above all, the will.

Helprin gives us an economic perspective.

The United States produces about $11 trillion worth of goods and services annually. We allocate $400 billion to military spending. That amounts to 3.6 percent of the GDP.

By contrast, during the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000, we spent 5.7 percent of the GDP on defense. In the war years, we spent 13.3 percent on defense. By the last years of the Second World War, we were spending, on the military, as much as 38.5 percent of the GNP. To put the same level of effort into the war on terrorism that we put into World War II, we would need, for military spending, $4.2 trillion. That’s ten times the existing budget.

How to deploy such a force?

Mr. Helprin accosts the question of Iran. “The sure way to strip Iran of its nuclear potential would be clear: issuance of an ultimatum stating that we will not allow a terrorist state, the legislature of which chants like a robot for our demise, to possess nuclear weapons.” We would clear the Persian Gulf of Iranian naval and coastal defense forces. Cut corridors across Iran that would be free of effective anti-aircraft capability. Bring carriers to the Gulf and expeditionary air forces to Saudi Arabia, and prepare long-range heavy bombers here and in Guam. “If then our conditions were unmet, we could destroy every nuclear, ballistic-missile, military-research, and military technical facility in Iran, with the promise that were the prohibited activities to resume and/or relocate we would destroy completely the economic infrastructure of the country.”

Mr. Helprin’s vision is informed by the catastrophic consequences of modern weaponry. We can't be indifferent to movements in any country which are designed to accumulate the kind of power which could kill Americans by the millions. We did nothing, for two decades, to declare ourselves at war with the poison of armed anti-Americanism. The terrorists, “who, contrary to the common wisdom, always have an address, could strike, and strike, and strike again — our embassies, navy, and largest city — and not suffer a single punitive expedition.” September 11 changed that, but we haven’t learned that an effort hugely greater in scale and more refined in conception is required to signal our determination to take on the disease wherever it is nurtured.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200409141444.asp

 

[NATO AIR]

we will have to take the neccessary steps to prevent them from playing nuclear chicken with the israelis. if that means we bomb, then yep, we must bomb. diplomacy with them will only go so far.

although this may be heresy, but we offer the people economic and social assistance after the bombing, because the iranian people themselves are not anti-american (they actually like us).

 

[William Joyce]

Zionist Jews have hijacked conservatism and you morons are opening the throttle for them. You must be destroyed.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Zionist Jews have hijacked conservatism and you morons are opening the throttle for them. You must be destroyed.

So let them arm?

 

[nbdysfu]

By contrast, during the peacetime years between 1940 and 2000, we spent 5.7 percent of the GDP on defense.

Uh, not to be picky or anything, but tell me that's a typo.

 

[nbdysfu]

Uh, not to be picky or anything, but tell me that's a typo.

Oh now I get it. He's saying that our military spending was 5.7 when we weren't at war between 1940-2000. Would have made more sense if he stated the war time percentage first. My bad

 

[nbdysfu]

Zionist Jews have hijacked conservatism and you morons are opening the throttle for them. You must be destroyed.

If zionist jews have hijacked conservatism, then I am a Mormon. WJ this article was written by William F. Buckley Jr.. Last I checked... he was not a mormon.

 

[onedomino]

The 3rd World War was the struggle against the Soviet Union. That war lasted 50 years. America spent trillions of dollars to defeat the USSR. The 4th World War is the struggle against multinational Islamic terror. Even after 911, not all Americans realize or admit that we are in a war to the death with this enemy.

Outside the UN, America should call for an emergency worldwide summit on Islamic totalitarianism, fascism, and terrorism. At the summit we should categorically declare that we will do whatever it takes to win the war by directly attacking and destroying all Islamic terrorists and their supporters wherever they are located. This includes, but is not limited to, almost every Islamic country or region in the world; especially Iran, the North Caucasus region of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Northwestern China. I believe that Russia and China can be elisted as allies. Both these countries have serious Islamic insurgencies. At the summit we should state that any national government that physically stands in our way will be eliminated and that financial reparations will be extracted. When France tries to block this accelerated War on Terror, we should calculate monetary damages and confiscate the corresponding value of French owned assets in the US. This war will take many years and will require a huge mobilization of American resources.

In borrowing the money to pay for the Viet Nam war, Johnson and Nixon caused damage to the US economy by contributing to monetary inflation that lasted more almost 20 years. In the 4th World War, we should have the determination to pay as we go, even though higher taxes will be required. As in WW2, we should promote the sale of war bonds to help defray the immediate expense. It is very unfortunate, but America will have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps trillions of dollars, to win the war against Islamic fascism. The cost will be much higher than should be necessary because America will not get much help from the rest of the world; expect no help from the EU.

What is the alternative to the War against Islamic fascism? Indefinite, never ending terror.

 

[Annie]

The 3rd World War was the struggle against the Soviet Union. That war lasted 50 years. America spent trillions of dollars to defeat the USSR. The 4th World War is the struggle against multinational Islamic terror. Even after 911, not all Americans realize or admit that we are in a war to the death with this enemy.

Agreed

Outside the UN, America should call for an emergency worldwide summit on Islamic totalitarianism, fascism, and terrorism. At the summit we should categorically declare that we will do whatever it takes to win the war by directly attacking and destroying all Islamic terrorists and their supporters wherever they are located. This includes, but is not limited to, almost every Islamic country or region in the world; especially Iran, the North Caucasus region of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Northwestern China. I believe that Russia and China can be elisted as allies. Both these countries have serious Islamic insurgencies. At the summit we should state that any national government that physically stands in our way will be eliminated and that financial reparations will be extracted. When France tries to block this accelerated War on Terror, we should calculate monetary damages and confiscate the corresponding value of French owned assets in the US. This war will take many years and will require a huge mobilization of American resources.

Wow, GW would really take a beating with this entire agenda! Eliminating countries? Seriously, there is very little chance that we will be getting 'new coalition partners' unless some nations not on board, get hit and change their minds. It could happen, think Stalin in WWII. I agree the war will last years, wouldn't be surprised that I'm gone and it's still on...

In borrowing the money to pay for the Viet Nam war, Johnson and Nixon caused damage to the US economy by contributing to monetary inflation that lasted more almost 20 years. In the 4th World War, we should have the determination to pay as we go, even though higher taxes will be required.

This I disagree with. Raising taxes could contribute to a depression, which would make it impossible to keep the people backing action, especially in the case of 'taking the war' to them.

As in WW2, we should promote the sale of war bonds to help defray the immediate expense. It is very unfortunate, but America will have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps trillions of dollars, to win the war against Islamic fascism. The cost will be much higher than should be necessary because America will not get much help from the rest of the world; expect no help from the EU.

What is the alternative to the War against Islamic fascism? Indefinite, never ending terror.

Agree with bonds or some other types of investment to offset deficits.

 

[onedomino]

Wow, GW would really take a beating with this entire agenda! Eliminating countries? Seriously, there is very little chance that we will be getting 'new coalition partners' unless some nations not on board, get hit and change their minds. It could happen, think Stalin in WWII. I agree the war will last years, wouldn't be surprised that I'm gone and it's still on...


This I disagree with. Raising taxes could contribute to a depression, which would make it impossible to keep the people backing action, especially in the case of 'taking the war' to them. Agree with bonds or some other types of investment to offset deficits.

Kathianne, I do not favor eliminating countries. But if national governments physically stand in our way and actively support Islamic fascism, e.g., Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Sudan, then those governments should be eliminated and war reparations extracted. GW is fighting the war and I support him for that. But what is the strategy for actually wining the war? Perhaps my suggested strategy for wining the war is too extreme. But the way we are currently prosecuting the war does not seem to have a long term strategy for victory. We are in a slow political and ideological bleed. We must allow ourselves to win.

Due to their local Islamic insurgencies, our best chances to enlist significant new allies are with Russia, and to a lesser extent, China. These countries may well be susceptible to financial inducement in the form of low or zero interest loans for infrastructure development. I do not think that obtaining material support from the EU, outside the UK and Eastern Europe, will ever occur. I am worried that Australian support will fail if Latham is elected on 9 October.


You may be right. But if we continue to borrow most of the huge sums necessary to win the war, then we must be prepared for the inflation that will inevitably follow. The devaluation of our money caused by inflation may well be more expensive than the economic cost of higher taxes.