Sure thing, let's.
Who's printing? Gov Stevens just spoke. No mention of printing. Do you know how they will finance this? Do you know what the impact on the dollar would actually be from the combination? Get some data. Once again, way off planatation. Once again, more financial sacre-mongering in the absence of data.
Why an additional $680m? How much of it was a catch-up? In any case, wasn't it you that was spinning like a top about China getting some rumbles in their tummy with all that trade moving through the South China Sea and rising to exert power etc.? Which side of the argument will you play tomorrow with that development?
What's the big picture? You've been expressing strong and largely immovable opinion on this issue all over the place. Surely you, of anyone, must know.
Can you provide a list of countries/peoples that were annihilated because they had no effective fighting force in the face of marauders please? Just for balance, you know.
On manifest destiny, I agree. Only change is constant.
Who exactly is over-extending here? And before you round on financial scare-mongering about US deficits and printing money yet gain, try to think big picture. It's not even close.
Further, your representation about little brothers is off kilter in the specifics as protrayed, but should inform some of the other points that actually are pertinent.
You actually get to vote. If you feel more motivated about the issue, you can write op-eds to every non-Murdoch newspaper that just doesn't report facts so readers can do their own thinking, but also offers analysis too. They can analyse your analysis. You can buy advertising time. You can write to your local member. You can distribute leaflets. You can door-knock and start a grass-roots movement. You can set-up a YouTube channel. You can organize a rally. Public debate is up to you - a member of the public. You have never been more empowered to do so.
What is the objective? In which case, what is the false objective? Is war by the numbers the right way to establish clear strategy? What if things change or you discover new things along the way? What does strategy look like then? How does the evolution of strategy appear to an ASF participant then? Unclear, perhaps? Would it be better if they laid out a Mission Statement, Vision Statement and a list of tasks and delegations using SMART and a SWOT analysis to the public? Is that what you actually expect?
In relation to your Sun Tzu quote, is the US unfamiliar with war in Iraq having spent over $106bn in one year alone (source: LZ)? What about Australia sending in SAS yet again. Not familiar enough for you? I guess they'll get the chance to become even more familiar.
Not sure how those thinkers and strategists of old think or strategise without spreadsheets, databases and of course, data.
Call that $680 million what you like, a catch-up, a repayment, a loan, a grant, a modernisation initiative... whatever it is, it's an additional spending requirement we'll have to find ways to pay for.
It's insane that somehow, new spending our gov't is trying to figure out how to pay for is not new... it's a catch up. Does the "fact" that we (Labor, of course) have been slacking on national security mean the catch-ups is not new money? OK then.
I've been quite consistent with my arguments regarding serious threats to national security - China being one, other major, nuclear powered states like Russia, India... possibly the others.
You seriously think a bunch of idiots on pick up trucks, as our Captain call them, is a threat to our national survival, could threaten our national interests and influence?
They do pose an indirect threat.. that is IF we keep going to war against these invisible targets, cutting off their heads and watch more heads rises among them... spending our blood and treasure and lost focus, lost economic power to finance necessary wars (if and when it does arrive).
But as I have also said, in a nuclear powered world where we can probably borrow a couple, the chances of another state attacking us is almost zero. That does not mean it is zero... but say it is.
So what's the danger?
First, a few hundred millions here, a few hundred catch-up millions there and, as some US Senator once said, adds up to real money.
Let's take a detailed look shall we... an average Australian earns what? $50, 000 p.a. before tax. At that rate, over their 45 years of labour they makes $2.25 million, say $2 million after tax.
Estimate cost to Australia is $500 million a year if we just bomb?
How many lifetime's of labour is that we've just wasted? 250?
I saw some news report that averages the US latest request for more missiles against ISIS... each works out to be about $1.6 million. Add to that the operating costs of the jets, the satellites, command/control.
And oh, collateral damages, people being blown up, cities and houses destroyed... but those costs are other people's problem right?
Let's get some data... I don't subcribe to databases so hope this free one will do:
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-airstrikes-syria-against-isis-may-cost-much-10-billion-1694475
U.S. forces conducted on Wednesday a second day of bombing against ISIS targets in Syria, in an operation that President Barack Obama expects to last more than three years -- and which may cost as much as $10 billion a year, according to estimates compiled by Foreign Affairs magazine. While the U.S. has recruited allies in the operation, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which are hitting targets on the ground while other partners in the coalition offer support, it will still meet a substantial chunk of the cost.
If anything underlines how high that cost will be, it’s the combat debut of the F-22 Raptor, which costs $68,000 per hour to operate. That does not include the price of its vast array of weapons, such as Sidewinder missiles and small-diameter bombs, coming in at $600,000 and $250,000 each, respectively.