Did you know...

[TalkingDog]

> we could cut the US defense budget in half
> spend an extra $150B per year on NASA,
> mail every person in the United States a check for $500
> and still have the largest defense budget in the world by a factor of three?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures


(credit to ImZeke)

[villager]

1. yes, but "change" doesn't mean actually changing any of that...

n/t

[defendandprotect]

2. Ike warned us re the MIC -- and he intended to include "intelligence" ... in that

questionable alliance -- "INTELLIGENCE" was removed twice from his draft !!

We need to end the "national security state" -- !!

[unkachuck]

3. unbelievable....our country is nuts....n/t

[stuckinarut]

4. I like how we changed it from "War Department" to

Defense Department.... It makes it taste oh so justified

:sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

5. Did you know we have a United States Institute of Peace?

From Wikipedia:

The United States Institute of Peace was created by Congress as a non-partisan, federal institution that works to prevent or end violent conflict around the world. President Ronald Reagan signed the United States Institute of Peace Act that established the Institute in 1984.


And from the Wikipedia "Discussion" page:

I'm wondering, how can an institution governed by a board "appointed by the president of the United States", as the article says, be nonpartisan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.182.56.249 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The inclusion of Daniel Pipes Board of Directors is enough to discredit this organization as non-partisan or pro peace. Pipes was appointed by Bush one of his controversial recess appointments. He is literally an anti-peace, pro-war hawk, zionist neocon at heart, who's soul purpose in life is to marginalize and malign muslims and the left. <1>

'Merikan (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I totally agree. The description of this entry as 'bipartisan' is ridiculous. It practically reads like a who's who of partisan (mostly conservative) appointees:

First off, Signed into Existence by Ronald Regan:

Board of Directors:

J. Robinson West= Chairman of an Energy Company, member of the National Petroleum Council, Council on Foreign Relations, and a former Assitant Deputy Secretary of Defense and served in the Reagan Administration as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Policy, Budget and Administration.

Holly J. Burkhalter= International Justice Mission a Christian-based organization, one that is connected to other Evangelical organizations.

Anne Hessing Cahn= a former US intelligence officer.

Chester A. Crocker= worked on Regan's 1980 election campaign and worked in the Regan administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; this is the guy who thought we were being too hard on South African for Apartheid.

Laurie S. Fulton= Williams & Connolly, the same law firm that represented Oliver North in the Iran Contra affair and Enron's legal firm.

Charles Horner= former General in the US Air Force (Warriors in Charge of Peace?) and member of the Hudson Institute, a self described conservative think-tank.

Ron Silver= a conservative blogger and actor/producer/director who was appointed to the institute by George W. Bush.

Judy Van Rest= International Republican Institute, an organization that claims credit for having united and organized a diverse range of "center and center right-wing" political parties and been embroiled in an number of political controversies over meddling in Haitian politics.

Members ex officio:

Condoleezza Rice= Bush administration former Secretary of State.

Robert M. Gates= Secretary of Defense.

Frances C. Wilson= Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps.

Not one member of any activist peace group. Not one well known Leftist Activist, Politician, or Writer, only a bunch of energy people, military people, and conservatively appointed people.

The description of this organization as bipartisan needs to be discussed, and if not discussed I will take it upon myself to change it soon.

--Joe volcano (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and think "bipartisan" is much more accurate than "non-partisan." Because of course they are partisan, but it changes depending on who is in power at that time. Making them bi-partisan. They essentially agree with the democratic and republican foreign policy platforms, which are extremely similar. You aren't going to see them working with Nader or the Libertarians any time soon24.207.131.20 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
99% of "facts" sourced from the official site

[stuckinarut]

6. Certainly sounds like a peaceful group...

pshht hehe

[slipslidingaway]

7. knr nt