"They are specifically designed to cause what we misleadingly call collateral damage, another term for the mangling and death of civilians."
Posted by chainsmoker

No the cluster bombs are used to deny ground to Infantry and light vehicles as a way to control corridors with out having to place men and material on the scene and to allow for a prediction of movement. Mines are for ground defense not attack weapons. That children and farmers are the usual post war victims of such munitions is because they are playing or working in large open areas once denied to military use. It isn't because farmers and children are post war targets for any military.

Collateral damage, is extra damage caused by hitting targets, and/or in missing targets. In the case of WW2 stick bombing or carpet bombing collateral damage was severe. London's fires were collateral damage. A bomb fragment traveling 500 yards and passing through a door to kill a 75 year old grandmother is collateral damage. Not intent or target.

I don't deny that there is a need for military expenditure, I question the sheer magnitude.

If the US is spending 48 per cent of the world's military budget, they are already vastly far ahead of any other military threats.

DB, you speak of China... but mathematically speaking, if the US is indeed spending 48 per cent of the world's budget and China is inching close to the US, that would mean all the other countries combined are spending less than five per cent.

I asked earlier, if there was a more practical way of spending this money. Many say no - to them I say, consider this:

The US spent vast amounts on their military budget and a fortune on Iraq yet allowed corrupt corporations to squander the amounts allocated for the reconstruction of the country.

Theoretically private enterprise is more efficient than government corporations - clearly this isn't the case when there is insufficient competition.
The effort at reconstructing Iraq has been woeful - the US government has utterly failed in its task. Private corporations have squandered what money was meant for this.

It would have been more expensive for the government to take on the task of reconstructing Iraq, instead of farming it out to private contractors. It would have required even more resources, though profit wouldn't have been the motivating factor, and there would have been some accountability.

Wouldn't this have been a better way to spend this money? The idea of spending money on military effectiveness (and remember the invasion was mighty quick and efficient) yet not investing properly in the reconstruction was stupidity.

Everyone speaks as if the military expenditure of the US is justified.

While I don't necessarily agree for a number of reasons, even if I did agree with the motives, clearly, the results are not being achieved for the investment.

So, yes. There are much more effective ways this money can be spent. Even if you do cede high military expenditure is necessary.

TRTL, It would be better if you were more judicial with your language rather than accusatory. The U.S citizens., the the American government, and more than 150 private companies, only part of the overall operation in Iraq, hires and fires and changes companies and prosecutes all criminal activity as it is found. Not one of the western companies is there to rape Iraq. If you begrudge them profit or for not conforming to your time line relative to the actions of a very aggressive and violent insurgency is another matter. Much is being done. It just isn't top ten in the news. Body counts sell more newspapers than good deeds. They know how emotional people are and how to wind them up.
I'm not suggesting no mistakes were made or will be made. I am saying that it is unjust to define the efforts in Iraq as American greed and write off all the good being done as collateral happenstance. To say that these people are only there for the sake of profit is a slap in the face by someone doing nothing but being critical using emotive headlines as supporting argument. I'd like to say get over there and dig in but, you'd have to have something to contribute other than ridicule.
And the U.S. Government spends billions each year in many countries around the world as employers. Especially American Bases in foreign nations. Ask the Filipinos how it was when the Yanks closed Clark AFB and Subic Bay Naval Station. A tremendous amount of near instant unemployment is what. Much of it unrecoverable yet by any new employment opportunities. Americas military isn't just bomb making.
And for the poster suggesting much of the American army is made up of people escaping poverty needs to study the pay schedule for American soldiers. You'd make more money starting out working part time at MacDonald's or Burger King. And certainly not put out half the effort or the commitment.

Aqvarivs - you make a fair point about those on the ground doing good work. I don't mean to disparage their efforts.

That doesn't hide the fact that billions of dollars have been squandered. And yes, in many cases it has been through corruption. At present, in the US, there are strong calls for an inquiry.

And I'm afraid, 'there have been mistakes' isn't good enough when so much money has gone missing.

TRTL, No "there have been mistakes" isn't good enough, and that is why the system is in constant repair. One can not simply focus on the errors while not highlighting the repairs.
No matter what is done the Left media is always in attack mode. Unless of course it's something that they want done. Then it's media blitz for understanding. However once in power the left are no more judicious or egalitarian than any other party. Emotionalism and manufacturing victims may sell news print and be the basis of some peoples intellectual start point but, not all. Some of us can see what a particular leader(whether voted for or not)is trying to accomplish