Where did I say anything about unwarranted wars?
They go hand in hand with what we have been involved in since the end of WWII. We could spend a crap pot full of less money, if we more wisely spent our tax dollars in the right places.
The dichotomy between morality and libertarianism is a false one. The libertarian does not reject a moral code, just the idea that the state should be used to impose that moral code on others.
Is your logic, then, to not have a defense so we don't get into wars?
A favor, if you will, Taxed. Play your semantic bullshit with someone else.
Any system this gigantic will be full of corruption. That's why it should be smaller too, but a war is a war. By nature, a gigantic enterprise. If they had trouble documented the expenditures in Iraq, imagine what a mess the two WW's were, and even Vietnam.
Outside of WWII, which was an outgrowth of us fokking up and getting into WWI, and possibly even then, tricked into getting engaged, the last justified war was the War of 1812. Since WWII, not one has been declared and/or justified. It is not now, now has it it ever been part of our Charter to remake the world in our image. We have paid a tremendous price in lives, the maiming of good people, untold trillions of dollars of our wealth and resources, and a steady erosion of the very thing our Revolution was predicated on- namely the establishment of our freedoms and liberties.I would suggest the price has been too damned high.
I just mapped out your logic without semantics. You say an increase in defense spending will cause unjust wars. Therefore, it sounds like you want no defense spending for no unjust wars. It is a pretty simple path to map out.
Defense spending doesn't have anything to do with Congress or the POTUS going to war. If you can't lay out your reasoning, then that's OK.....
That is not what I said as you well know.
If you do not think defense spending has anything to do with Congress, the POTUS, or going to war, you have been living in a bubble.
I didn't say you said that. I was following your logic. What are you saying??Now who's changing words? I said Congress GOING TO WAR.
Have it your way, Taxed. Defending the country would take a hell of a lot less money if we confined ourselves to defending the homeland.
I agree that we should have left the nation building off of the tail end of things.But I don't think that a case can be made that stopping the carnage of WW1, Hitler, communism, muslim terrorism, or the destruction of Israel.....is a waste of time or pointless effort.That just doesn't make sense. Some stuff you can't just let happen, and affect us however it will.
Simple, our armed services, constitutionally, were charges with protecting the homeland. Even at that, standing armies were unkindly looked upon, with well equipped militias designated as the first line of defense, but still, if necessary, only to be funded for a two year period at a time. Offensive use of the armed services were not specified. Unlimited funding for military adventurism was also not specified along with any and all foreign aid and placing and maintaining troops in foreign lands. So, a very strong military is necessary and required for 'DEFENSE', but damned sure not for unlimited, undeclared, and unwarranted wars that we have absolutely not one tinkers damn of business being involved in.