The Brazilian navy website said the four-ship program will cost about $2 billion.
Howard Kohr, CEO of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), opened the organization’s annual conference in Washington D.C. by issuing a stark warning to push back against “political leaders and their supporters” who call for conditions on U.S. support for Israel.
Sanders is the only candidate in the Democratic presidential race to raise the issue of conditioning military aid to Israel.
The Defense Department is long overdue for a 21st century overhaul. That would mean budget cuts far beyond what any 2020 candidates are proposing.
The increase is being driven in large part by the two largest military spenders in the world, the United States and China. Both nations increased their respective spending by 6.6%. The US alone increased spending $53.4 billion, which is itself almost as much as other major nations, like Britain, spend on their entire national defense budget.
10.02.2020 – The annual charade of the Executive branch presenting a budget proposal for the next year began today. President Trump presented a massive $4.8 trillion budget proposal that gives the impression of slashing domestic spending while boosting spending on militarism. Do we really need what the Pentagon is buying?
From Defender-Pacific to combat training center rotations, the Army is continuing its push to increase readiness in 2021.
The Army’s $178 billion budget request for fiscal year 2021 includes $68.1 billion for operations and maintenance, which includes funding for training at home stations, at the combat training centers and overseas.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is leading a congressional delegation to Israel this week amid an intraparty debate over conditioning military aid to the close US ally and Democratic efforts to limit President Donald Trump’s ability to attack Iran.
“And no matter what our party — or wherever we are within our party — the fact that we have the shared values with Israel and that is one reason for our joy in the creation of Israel as a historical miracle, the greatest accomplishment of the [20th] century,” Pelosi said at a working lunch with Knesset members.
This practice of “political engineering,” a term promoted by former Department of Defense analyst and military reformer Chuck Spinney, helps those contractors and the Pentagon buy off members of Congress from both parties.
In both 2001 and 2002, via large majorities, the Congress passed authorizations for war. While not declarations of war, these mandates, each titled an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provided the legal framework in 2001 for attacks against al-Qaeda and in 2002 for the invasion of Iraq. Since 2001, the first AUMF has far exceeded its original purpose and has been used to justify military strikes and operations in close to twenty countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, often against nations, organizations, and individuals who had nothing to do with 9/11. It was even cited by President Obama, and then President Trump, as the authority to extra-constitutionally execute an American citizen and his teenage children, without trial, by drones and commandos.
In our case, of course, the definition of “national security” is subsidizing the U.S. military-industrial complex, year in, year out, at levels that should be (but aren’t) beyond belief. In 2019, Pentagon spending is actually higher than it was at the peak of either the Korean or Vietnam conflicts and may soon be — adjusted for inflation — twice the Cold War average.
Yes, in those four decades, there were dips at key inflection points, including the ends of the Vietnam War and the Cold War, but the underlying trend has been ever onward and upward. Just why that’s been the case is a subject that almost never comes up here.
Pete Buttigieg is doing some shady stuff with his campaign. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down.
„I wouldn’t discount anything from Iran,” he said. “When a nation behaves that irresponsibly, you have to be very cautious when you evaluate what they might do in the future.”
McKenzie noted that Iran increased its military spending from its recent low in 2014 to $27.3 billion, or six percent of GDP, in 2018.
Ahead of the meeting of NATO Leaders in London to mark the Alliance’s 70th anniversary, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday (29 November 2019) gave details of large increases in Allied defence spending. Mr. Stoltenberg announced that in 2019 defence spending across European Allies and Canada increased in real terms by 4.6 %, making this the fifth consecutive year of growth. He also revealed that by the end of 2020, those Allies will have invested $130 billion more since 2016.
The administration sought to cut its contribution to Nato’s direct budget from 22 per cent to around 16 per cent, CNN reported, citing US defence officials.
It would bring its contribution closer to Germany, which pays 14.8 per cent. The UK pays 10 per cent.
Auf Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten wird die Verordnung zur Einrichtung eines ECCC in der Ratsarbeitsgruppe „Horizontale Fragen der Cyberpolitik“ beraten, zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt wird die Ratsarbeitsgruppe „Forschung“ einbezogen. Im Parlament liegt das Dossier im Ausschuss für Industrie, Forschung und Energie (ITRE). Berichterstatterin war die Piratin Julia Reda, im neuen EU-Parlament übernimmt dies der Grüne Rasmus Andresen.
Trump’s call for ending U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and bringing the troops home was a feature of his presidential campaign, but it flies in the face of many decades of bipartisan American policy, even as the Trump administration and its immediate predecessor have tried to give additional attention to what they see as long-term security threats elsewhere, including from China and Russia.
STUTTGART, Germany — When the new U.S. and German defense chiefs held high-level talks in Washington this week, Defense Secretary Mark Esper wasted no time getting to his main point — the dollars and cents of defense spending.
“Every time your local city council member, your state representative, your member of Congress tells you there’s not enough money to make sure we have clean water, there’s not enough money to have quality health care for all … there’s just not enough money to make sure our kids have the tools they need to get the best education possible,” that’s the cost of current foreign policy, said Gabbard, who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
In the 18 years since Sept. 11, 2001, taxpayers have spent $6 trillion for the War on Terror, she said. The bill continues to go up at a rate of $4 billion a month for the war in Afghanistan.
June 22, 2010
To the Members of the Subcommittee:
Today I present to you a report entitled, Warlord, Inc.: Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan, which has been prepared by the Majority staff of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
After a six-month investigation, the report exposes the circumstances surrounding the Department of Defense’s outsourcing of security on the supply chain in Afghanistan to questionable providers, including warlords.
The findings of this report range from sobering to shocking. In short, the Department of Defense designed a contract that put responsibility for the security of vital U.S. supplies on contractors and their unaccountable security providers. This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt
Afghan officials, and perhaps others.
Not only does the system run afoul of the Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in Afghanistan.
On July 24, 54 organizations from across the political spectrum sent a letter to each member of the House of Representatives commending the House for including in the annual defense spending bill a measure to repeal the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) .
House and Senate negotiators will now determine whether the 2001 AUMF repeal provision will remain in the final bill. During this process, it is imperative that members of Congress continue to publicly support repealing the blank check for war, which has led to ever-expanding military operations under three presidents.
Discussions are expected to start in August, and he estimated that a conference report would be finalized by Oct. 1.
Recognizing the Flaws & Failures of the 2001 AUMF ( )
Lee, who was the sole NO vote on the 2001 AUMF passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, offered another amendment to express the sense of Congress that the 2001 AUMF has been utilized well beyond the scope that Congress intended, that it has served as a blank check for any President to wage war at any time and any place, and that any new authorization for the use of military force to replace the 2001 AUMF should include a sunset clause, a clear and specific expression of objectives, targets, and geographic scope, and reporting requirements. Eighteen years ago, she feared that the AUMF would be a blank check, and that is exactly what it has been.
The amendment passed 237 to 183. 215 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and Amash voted for it. 167 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted against it.
Here are the 16 warmongering Democrats:
Students at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas) in London have slammed the payments as “outrageous.”
At least £400,000 has passed between the military and the university since the end of 2016, according to freedom of information requests filed by student group Decolonising Our Minds.
The ruling allows the administration to use $2.5 billion in military funds to begin construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border while litigation plays out. A lower court had issued an injunction blocking officials from using those funds.
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned an appellate decision and said that the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds. But that will most likely take many months or longer, allowing Mr. Trump to move ahead before the case returns to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said the aircraft had violated Iranian airspace, and that the incident sent a „clear message to America“.
But the US military insisted the drone had been over international waters at the time, and condemned what it called an „unprovoked attack“ by the IRGC.