tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30887649.post256318613553845872..comments2023-04-17T11:43:20.195-04:00Comments on Travels with Raindrop: We Fear for the RepublicLew and Jan Johnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00582659155240769648noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30887649.post-19270259303968577262008-06-10T20:03:00.000-04:002008-06-10T20:03:00.000-04:00NATO did not defeat the Soviet Union. They defeate...NATO did not defeat the Soviet Union. They defeated themselves. I merely said we should beware of Carte Blanche military spending least America suffers the same fate. Without counting Bush's War our military outlay is more than the rest of the World put together. Cutting that figure in half (for example) would not necessarily make America "militarily weak". Only Pentagon mismanagement can do that.<BR/><BR/>LewLew and Jan Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00582659155240769648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30887649.post-83378681505376677242008-06-08T02:20:00.000-04:002008-06-08T02:20:00.000-04:00"Remember that the Bad Old USSR failed not because...<I>"Remember that the Bad Old USSR failed not because Ronnie&The Pentagon beat them, but rather because they spent their nation's Resources on Military Toys and collapsed in exhaustion"</I><BR/><BR/>The old USSR spent so much on their military in response to the military strength of the NATO nations -- not just the USA. <BR/><BR/>With our allies we defeated that awful oppressive government that swallowed up eastern Europe, imprisoned their citizens within their borders, and threatened the whole world. <BR/><BR/>Eastern Europe is free today because of what the USA did along with England, Germany, France and others. If we had all been militarily weak the USSR would now control all of Europe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30887649.post-50320954666315653102008-04-24T15:05:00.000-04:002008-04-24T15:05:00.000-04:00When I was in my late teens, I read a book by a ri...When I was in my late teens, I read a book by a right-wing scholar (I didn't know that at the time) named Paul Johnson, called <I>The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers</I>, which argued that the _characteristic_ way that great powers have collapsed through history is through overspending on military projects. It's a strong argument, which can be supported with a range of historical evidence from across the globe.<BR/><BR/>A corollary to this theory is that military spending and military effectiveness don't always march hand in hand; while we are more effective than the Iraqi militias we fight, and the British regular army was more effective than the rag-tag Americans they fought during what we call the American revolution, neither one was at all <I>cost</I>-effective. Similar inefficiencies plagued, e.g., Sung China and the late Roman empire.Adam Johnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11588769281227456640noreply@blogger.com