Rusija, Kina , kao i sav ostali slobodni svijet ,trebaju dati pare i oružje Meksikancima, da povrate svoje vjekovne teritorije .
Uslov - da ne tuku teritoriju USA .

cilj Hispanaca je biti građanima SADa, ne odvojit se od SADa. Da su htjeli biti građani Meksika ostali bi u Meksiku

Biden's new whopping $886B defense budget request

Likely Ukraine add-ons and congressional increases could lead to the first $1 trillion package ever.

The Pentagon released its budget request for Fiscal Year 2024 today. The figure for the Pentagon alone is a hefty $842 billion. That’s $69 billion more than the $773 billion the department requested for Fiscal Year 2023.

Total spending on national defense — including work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy — comes in at $886 billion.

Adding in likely emergency military aid packages for Ukraine later this year plus the potential tens of billions of dollars in Congressional add-ons could push total spending for national defense to as much as $950 billion or more for FY 2024. The result could be the highest military budget since World War II, far higher than at the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam Wars or the height of the Cold War.

The proposed budget is far more than is needed to provide an effective defense of the United States and its allies.

If past experience is any guide, more than half of the new Pentagon budget will go to contractors, with the biggest share going to the top five — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — to build everything from howitzers and tanks to intercontinental ballistic missiles. Much of the funding for contractors will come from spending on buying, researching, and developing weapons, which accounts for $315 billion of the new budget request.

As suggested above, Congress will probably add a substantial amount to the Pentagon’s request, largely for systems and facilities located in the states and districts of key members. That's no way to craft a budget — or defend a country. When it comes to defense, Congress should engage in careful oversight, not special interest politics.

There is more than money at stake. An open-ended strategy that seeks to develop capabilities to win a war with Russia or China, fight regional wars against Iran or North Korea, and sustain a global war on terror that includes operations in at least 85 countries is a recipe for endless conflict.

We can make America and its allies safer for far less money if we adopt a more realistic, restrained strategy and drive a harder bargain with weapons contractors that too often engage in price gouging and cost overruns while delivering dysfunctional systems that aren’t appropriate for addressing the biggest threats to our security.

The Congressional Budget Office has crafted three illustrative options that could ensure our security while spending $1 trillion less over the next decade. A strategy that incorporates aspects of these plans and streamlines the Pentagon budget in other areas could be sustained at roughly $150 billion per year less than current levels.

A new approach would take a more objective, evidence-based view of the military challenges posed by Russia and China, rely more on allies to provide security in their own regions, reduce the U.S. global military footprint, and scale back the Pentagon's $2 trillion plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. Cutting wasteful spending practices and slowing or replacing spending on unworkable or outmoded systems like the F-35 and a new $13 billion aircraft carrier could save billions more. And reducing spending on the half a million-plus private contractors employed by the Pentagon could save hundreds of billions over the next decade.

Ovo je samo jedan simptoma duboko poboljelog društva i države (USA) , a oni takvi bi da vladaju planetom i nameću drugima svoje ''vrjednosti''

naravno da bi, kad nemaju ozbiljne konkurencije.

i takvi bolesni i dalje nemaju premca. nažalost

Ne mislim da je tako .
U Evropi , bar onoj nekadašnjoj (ne konfrontiranoj Rusiji) nije bilo tako .
Da li će biti , ostaje da se vidi .
A i ostatak svijeta se polako ''kultiviše'' .
U USA je takva pojava sve masovnija , postala je trend , naročito otkad ovog fosila staviše na funkciju Prvog gospodina .


Opšta konfuzija u najavi

jednostavno ne postoji nitko drugi ko im može obiljno konkurirati, trenutno. Svi ostali također imaju milijun mana i razloga zašto SAD mora sam sebe uništavati još desetljećima, i možda ni onda neće imati globalnog konkurenta.

jedino što će svijet biti pun kaotičniji bez jasnog vodstva. i puno opasniji.

U čemu konkurisati ? Šta nam to nude kao dobro ?
Nekad , dok je svijet bio multipolaran , i bilo je toga ...danas , šta ?
Poslije sloma ''komunizma'' izludili su potpuno .
I naravno , stižu promjene.. Mnogo brže nego što misliš .
PS.
Ama , sebe ne mogu urediti.

Jos su najjaci i najbogatiji ne zato sto su puno dobri nego zato sto pljackaju cijeli svijet.
A mozda je i to znak sposobnosti.

to je jednim djelom stvar inercije, odnosno života na staroj slavi.

ali objektivno, koju vi to drugu silu vidite da je sposbna ponuditi nešto više, i iznjeti to na svojim plećima?

Amerika je supersila po inerciji, jer nema dovoljno jakih rivala. A i ono što ih ima, ne nude mnogo.

Inercija ne drži dugo . Pitaj Veliku Britaniju , ako imaš sumnju u to .

Nema jakih rivala ?!
Jbte , gledam sa koliko ushićenja , iskopina Bajden , priča o nekakvoj novoj željezničkoj vezi Los Anđelos - Las Vegas . Čija je vrijednost 3 milijarde dolara... A Kinezi svake hefte odrađuju po jedan takav projekat .
Kojekakvi Briksevi , Pojasi i putevi , dekolonizacija Afrike , i mnogo toga još , iza brda valjaju ( i to brzo) novi raspored svijeta . Koji mjenja ovaj , koji je Zapad napravio samo za sebe .
Zapad to ničim ne može sprječiti . Konture tog novog ''rasporeda '' se već naziru .

Te epohalne promjene će , kao i svaki put kada se dešavaju, svakako proizvesti i mnoge sukobe , ratove i sl...
Ali nadati se da će biti manje pogubni od WW1 i WW2 .

velika britanija je imala konkurenta u vidu rastuče, potentne sile SADa.

SAD takvog rivala NEMA.



Kinezi su pluskvamperfekt. Njih je demografska implozija već sada osudila na prosječnost. K tome im je režim takav da ga se svatko zdrav ježi.

Naravno, dešava se novi raspored itd..ali u tom rasporedu SAD će ostati najjači igrač jer naprosto nemaju konkurenciju. Relativno slabiji nego prije, al ii dalje najutjecajniji.