200 years ago, the mindset of our political leaders was to keep to ourselves(western hemisphere). We are spread so thin, our homeland is in peril of invasion, decay and wasteful neglect. We should get back to worrying about us, and stop thinking we are the world's police. There are countries in this world that have been fighting far before the US even existed. And they'll still be fighting hundreds of years from now. Let's mind our own business, and get the flock out of all those foreign countries. Use all the war money to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewer lines, etc.
Idealists like Ron Paul and his supporters believe that if we close all overseas bases and pull all our troops home, our enemies will leave us alone. This thinking is naive and dangerous.
We are not dealing with an enemy that thinks rationally. They are hell bent on destroying western culture and it's people. Entire nations have declared their intent to destroy us, Israel, and our allies. Our presence is necessary to deter such thoughts from becoming actions.
We have enemies with nuclear weapons in both hemispheres. Iran will on board with them soon. And we should sit home like good little pacifists??
I agree that better use of our troops through improved strategic placement is necessary. But bringing them all home is not an option.
I get so pissed at the world economy, the way we are dumping tax dollars to many enemies,and the abuses we suffer through the United Nations, I sometimes feel we should revisit the Monroe Doctrine. Sadly, that is impossible in this day and time.
Realists like Ron Paul and his supporters believe that if we close all overseas bases and pull all our troops home, our enemies will diminish in their capacity to wage endless war. This thinking is mature and and will make us safer.
The naive and foolish among us think that if we keep spending our resources killing people overseas that somehow they will hate us less.
History has shown that war begets war.
We are trillions of dollars in debt. The surest way to ensure the destruction of the United States is keep spending money on unwinnable wars fighting an enemy who believes that they can sucker us into weakening our economy and spreading our resources thin so as to ultimately see us fall. So far, we're playing into their hands.
The patriotic answer is to protect our borders and take care of our own and eliminate our debt.
Ron Paul has received more campaign donations from active military personal than all other presidential contenders, including Obama, and more than all of the other Republicans COMBINED.
Howard, why does defense spending always have to be the target when talking about cutting spending. I agree hat we must begin to live within our means.We have done that in the past with overseas troop levels higher than then are today. What about entitlements like welfare and medicaid. What about earmarks? What about all the silly "research" projects like the mating of Great Lakes salmon? I
You and I have disagreed in the past, but I don't think that we have ever been thhis far apart on an issue.
Are you saying that if we abandon all foreign bases that we will then be "out of sight, out of mind"?!?!
They want to kill us. period. I'd rather fight them over there then here.
Are you saying that terrorists will abandon their efforts if we withdraw!!????!!!
A direct quote from Joe Biden that you must agree with:
""Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Biden said. "There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests."
Bob, everything needs to be on the table to cut. The size of the government needs to be massively reduced, and to be truly conservative means putting military spending on the table, too, by the billions, and the only way you're going to do that is end foreign military entanglements (as the FOUNDERS intended).
Mostly, they want to be left alone.
War begets war. You can't argue against that. It's proven throughout history. The only logical outcome of the foreign policy you espouse is the destruction of the United States. Is that your hope?
Bob, selectively reducing the number of U.S.troops stationed around the globe does not mean abandoning a strong defense or our allies. It does however mean that our allies need to pick up more of the costs for their own national defense.
Our placement of air bases in Saudi Arabia and unconditional support or defense of what ever Israel does, the invasion of Iraq that on the basis of questionable intelligence if not outright lies and continued support for self-installed autocrats are the underlying and unresolved reasons we have so many enemies in the mid-East, Africa and Asia. The hate filled venom spewed by far right Islamaphobes doesn't help either.
I too find the world economy is leaving our country behind but that has more to do with corporate interests and an idustrial policy here that have put profits ahead of people and ahead of loyalty to the people of United States.
Blaming the United Nations is an often repeated cannard that simply detracts from any serious discussion, it provides a table for nations to sit and attempt resolutions to disputes. Although I will admit Colin Powell's holding a vile of powder and claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to gain the security council resolution that was the used as the pre-text to invade Iraq does support your contention that "the abuses we suffer through the United Nations". However, that does not provide a reason to abandon the U.N. and its purpose as an institution.
I must have missed the news about the nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies in both hemispheres. I wasn't aware that there was another nuclear armed country in this hemisphere other than the our own that is unless you were refering to the quote of the great philosoper Pogo who once said "we has met the enemy and it is us".
Bob, read the CIA's reports on blow-back, I think it might put your mind at ease if we closed bases around the world. If you can't find it let me know and I'll find you the link.
Terry, the only results of a blow back search are wiki and blogs. cia.gove contains nothing.
To those of you (all? :) that disagree with me, do you contend that "pretty please can we have our drone back" is a viable foreign policy?
Ans before you state that our drone shouldn't have been there, please justify our sitting idle while a madman that vows to destroy western culture (and Israel) realizes his dream of nuclear weapons.
Isn't "defense" named so in order to defend ourselves/our nation? Or is defense to be used as offensive-line pawns fighting battles for other nations? If the government were my household and we were on the brink of losing it all, I bet one of the first things I would cut from our budget would be the Brinks alarm system, after all, what good is a defense system if there is nothing left to protect?
Something else that should be looked at is the effects that sanction have against average people. The people most affected by these sanctions are the poorer people that have the least to do with any of there governments policies. Its reported and confirmed by Madeleine Albright that because of the sanctions against Iraq in the 1980's 500,000 children starved to death or died because of lack of sanctioned medication. If I watched my family starve to death because of a p*ssing match between power hungry leaders my feelings towards the offending nation might slowly change to extreme.
As the world sees it we are a nation that is governed by the people. If our governments recklessness kills 500,000 children in their eye's the people of the US killed 500,000 children. When our government puts a offensive military base next to a sacred mosque the people of the US built that military base.
Foreign policy and foreign occupation creates blow back.
Sorry Terry, just trying to help "win hearts and minds" LOL. The military/industrial complex which we were so famously warned of needs to have a bogeyman out there to justify the excessive defense spending that becomes huge profits. A lot of the perceived threats are just plain made up. I haven't heard of a shred of actual evidence that Iran is processing uranium in a way that can be used to make a weapon. Their reactors truly are for energy. And before I'm called an appeaser, let me say that I believe we should respond swiftly and forcefully to any actual threats. We have the best intelligence available, our NSA and Military Intelligence apparatus will know if a threat is real or not. There will always be sabre rattling, just like when I was a kid on the playground, other guys will challenge you and then when you stand up to them, they run off. The real threats will stand still, then you have a decision to make. Step up or step off. What we are doing is hanging around looking for a fight.
(edited to change "plutonium" to read "uranium" I don't know how to build a nuclear bomb and neither do those Iranian bozos)
Bob,
It's the waste in the Defense department. A recent example is that there are now 970 flag officers (That's generals and admirals with 1 star to 4 star ranks). That's more than before the wars started up, at the same time the number of enlisted troops has been falling. Each of these flag officers has a staff and command. Retired Sec of Defense Gates wanted to cut them and targeted some unnecessary commands to be eliminated. Gates is gone and the number of generals and admirals now goes up.
We spend years trying to decide on a new rifle for the military, the same with the new pistol, and then do the whole thing over and over, wasting more and more money. The army wasted millions of dollars changing it dress uniform from green to blue when barracks needed to be upgraded instead. This is just an example of why the defense budget needs to be reduced.
Did you know we have troops stationed in the Sinai desert? What a waste of money that is.
The only threat to our nation is our own government bring everyone home. 300 years from now, when and if the United States collapses historians will point back at our nation to show how it's history repeating its self as the most powerful nation / empire on the globes government overspends it's self and drives the nation into the ground.
Europe can defend it's self. Israel can defend themselves - before you say Ahmadinejad is crazy, know that he does not have control over the Army. Ahmadinejad doesn't have all that much power. Khamenei is the one who has supreme command of the armed forces, can declare war, and who has ultimate judicial authority, and he's the one who's been in power for 22 years.
I agree that we could pull back most of our military forces and leave some countries all together. We should keep a few strategy bases with skeleton crews to keep them maintain for rapid military deployment if, necessary. To be so naive, that leaving the radicals of the world alone will make us safer is the thoughts of a "FOOL". People of this country believe all of the world thinks the way we do.
However, if we did pull back and maintain a few bases oversea, it would definitely save this country billions of dollars every year. Besides our military is a rapid deployment military which can reach anywhere in the world in efficient time so, we really do not have to rely on some many oversea bases. If, enlarge our bases here it, would create more jobs for the Americans rather than some host nation.
John, thinking that we can control the actions of the radicals in this world by sheer force is truely the thought of a fool. We need to close ALL of our foreign bases. Deploying our Navy task forces around the world's seven seas will provide us a defense net that noone can came close to. Besides the Army and the Air Force just drop the ball most of the time anyways, keep them at home shinig their shoes and practicing marching. That way the Navy won't have to always bail them out. Anchors Aweigh my boys!!!!
Well my little semen, where did I mention using sheer force to control radicals. I know! NO WHERE. You truely hold a blind eye to the dangers of the world. Hmmm here are some historical facts for you. What did the Japanese view Americans as during WWII? What did Al-Quieda view Americans as before 9-11, the bombing of the USS Cole (Talking about dropping the ball.), etc.... The key word is "Weak". When American show restraint and did not attack our enemies classified the US as weak. Now yes in both cases we prevailed but, we allowed both to hit home before we woke up.
STOP, with the if, we leave them alone, they won't bother us. It like telling a Chicken to pay no attention to the Fox, he won't eat you.
Having the Navy do our defense from sea, that is funny. You are talking about the same service that places their name on their bum so, they know who they are screwing. Don't drop the soap Sailor or Anchors Aweigh boy.
Having a few bases doesn't mean having thousands of personnel, they can be communication, logistical sites. Beside every where I served was on a host nation base or a Foward Operating Base (aka FOB).
Oh I take it you served in the Navy if, THANK YOU for your service Brother.
Having a military base in another country is a show of force and intimidation and it causes resentment. Host nation bases would be a different thing, I was at quite a few of them. But since you have ordered me to stop.......I guess I better.
Howard at least we can agree on the time frame. We may differ on the reasons, but we certainly agree that our nation's future viability is in serious doubt.
Dave, your last statement is the epitome of political correctness. How dare we instill resentment in the radical islamic terrorists. Better to withdraw and let them bring the fight to us, right?
Where are they bringing the fight? They don't have a navy or an air force, the only way to us is through faulty home land security. Bring the troops home, take them off North Koreas border and put them on ours.
I think we're more than capable of dealing with the most radical elements of Islam -- a subset of a subset of Islamic aspirations -- without spending billions on foreign wars and occupations and deployments.
The main goal of invading Afghanistan -- capturing and/or killing bin laden -- was accomplished years after the fact and not through military might, but through intelligence and strategic use of the best our military has to offer.
Having a military base in another country such as England, Germany, Italy is not something that causes resentment. If, that is the case Sir, then have your so called Navy deployed around the world is a intimidation factor. So, what are you going to call it now? Defends or Intimidation you cannot have it both ways Dave.
As Howard stated that Ron Paul and he both believe we need to stop foreign aid to other countries because, it costs the taxpayers. Funny thing is that Howard also, feels we need open our entire border and stop harassing illegal immigrants. He does not seem concern with the taxpayers paying for free education, medical or welfare for these people either.
Oh, if we stop with foreign aid would that cause resentment Dave?
Howard I thought you being a former Security Policeman for the USAF would understand more than you know.
Afghanistan is a catch 22 topic. Propaganda for the radicals would be immense. Do not think for one minute they would not use this. They will tell the world that, they have conquer two super powers. Our issue now is the amount of drugs that are produce there and sent throughout the world to support the radical islam campaign. Once again Dave and you believe these people think the way we think.
So, there is another reason that it would be dangerous to pull out. I do agree though I would rather get out but, we are damn if we do and damn if we do not. Either we fight the war on terrorism or the war on drugs. However, I have serious doubts the war on drugs would be view by you as protecting our country. Either way they are both expensive.
The main goal of invading Afghanistan -- capturing and/or killing bin laden -- was accomplished years after the fact and not through military might, but through intelligence and strategic use of the best our military has to offer.
Howard, so, you would agree then have a few bases overseas such as Communication and Logistical would be consider strategic? After all these type of bases would not house thousands of military members. They would be more of an early detection type defense and could transform into support for an offensive nature, just like Dave suggested with the Navy.
John, having men of war sailing in international waters is not anywhere near the same thing as stationing military forces on sovereign soil. Yes, rule the seas, protect the USA, no question. I was just joking about the Army and AF dropping the ball, Busting ya'lls chops a little. They can however improve readiness better here at home and the AF has a huge intelligence mission which can mostly and is mostly done from the US. And yes, stopping all foreign aid I'm sure will cause some resentment, but at least we won't be arming them to use against us anymore. I think defense should be just that, defense not offense.
Dave, I know you were busting my chops, that is why I busted back. We all serve the same flag brother.
Sure is the same Dave. BTW, how does having military communication and logistic installatons differ from the Navy patroling the seven seas? It does not.
These are low cost compare to the major installations. They both provide early detection. The logistic helps boots on the ground when needed. War cannot be won or defended by air or sea alone.
Stopping foreign aid won't keep them from arming or bring the fight to the US. They already have operatives here and are have more seeping in from the south.
Dave, all I know if, we stay clueless to the new dangers of the world we are setting ourselves up for failure as well.
You can look at foreign aid as just arming the enemies of the US. Granted there are some cases like that because, we do not secure the aid. We give it to them and then the warlords strip it from them.
The US needs to help others as long as they are willing to help themselves. We should of never rebuilt Iraq with our money, we should used their oil sales to fund this.
The factor you leave out of all of your comments is the COST.
We are out of money.
Soon, we'll be paying more in interest on our debts than on the actual expense of running the country.
Not that I agree with assertions, but there is simply no, none, nada, justification for continuing the expensive of running a Department of Offense. Interventionism costs too much money and there are acceptable alternatives.
I repeat: We are out of money. And until we come to grips with that reality, our country has no future, with or without radical Islam. Radical Islam is a very minor problem compared to the enormity of this nation circling the drain because of too much spending, too big of a government.
Right Howard "COST" is the main problem. However, you feel the military is our only wasteful spending. Well lets also remember that Welfare is being abused more and more; illegal immigrants that come in and get free education and medical (At the expense of the taxpayers, not to mention some of them steal social security numbers.); Social Security funds being abused; an government that lines its own pocket; businesses are moving out, which means less jobs, which means less taxes collected, etc.... OH LETS NOT FORGET "OBAMA HEALTH CARE" so, Howard are we going to sustain that enormous cost? I know you were Pro-Obama before.
I agree we should pull back most oversea bases but, to leave a few communication and logistical bases intact for early detection and defense. They are not going to break the bank anymore than above problems issues.
Heck, people stated in their comments to station our troops on our borders. I am surprised you did not flare up with that comment. You failed to learn from history lessons.
This Country's down fall is not because, our military. Our down fall is because, big business is moving out, Americans take little pride in their work (It is just a job mentality.), our government has become self serving.
Kodak prime example, "Dead Thinking", their CEOs believe that film will never die. Then along came the digital era and Kodak sat on their hands till it was too late.
Oh by the way I never stated that you said, Islam is a Peaceful religion. They self claim they are a Peaceful Religion.
I stopped reading right here: "However, you feel the military is our only wasteful spending. "
Where the HELL have I EVER said that?
I really, really hate it when people speak for me. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't twist my words. Don't mischaracterize my words. If you're going to debate me, do so truthfully.
That is my opinion of you. After all, you act like that our involvement with other country is what is leading to the collapse of our country. You do not feel illegal immigration is cause for it because, they help farmers pick crops. So, I assume you feel that our involvement with other countries and having bases overseas are the only issues. It is not a mischaracterization of you. Notice one thing Howard when I quote what someone said, I use quotations so, if you look at that statement there is not any.
You defended illegal immigration and failed to be concerned about the drain it puts on our country. As far as welfare goes I really do not know where you stand. Do you feel that businesses leaving this country are an issue? So, before you rant that I am misquoting you, check for my quotation marks. I am just voicing my opinions on my observations. Sorry, if I hurt your feelings though, I was not quoting you in that remark.
Not ONCE have I defended illegal immigration. I've defended the need for farmers to have dependable labor. That's not the same thing as defending illegal immigration.
I'm going to stop responding to you. You are obviously incapable of discussing issues in a mature and rational matter. Your mode of operation is to misrepresent what people say and then argue against your fiction. There's no way to hold a rational discussion with such a line of argument.
Howard, you do support illegal immigration. In your own comments you felt that illegal immigration laws are too aggressive. That you felt the laws are a waste of time and that we should just open the border because, farmers were hurting for workers. So, Howard you are defending illegal immigrations. You are not being honest with yourself and as far as me rational I am.
Hello everyone, just getting caught up with the thread. To:John... While I agree that welfare is heavily abused and needs reform there are other places that need some fixing besides the military. The military budget is the biggest, and you of all people know how on your end of that budget our troops didnt have enough armor and the there are big charges for little things (ie the 3000.00 toilet seats and 800.00 hammers etc) But imho this expenditure of the Govt that any senator or congressman has health insurance for life and pensions that are ridiculous, even if they leave office in shame or are kicked out, thats a big one. Same with covering others after they have left their jobs in federal or state govt. Its ridiculous to talk about taking away from those who struggle while those that usually have the means and wealth to contribute end up w free health and retiremen. Have the same accountants that figure middle class ssi and ssd figure out reasonable pkgs for these people.
Howard... I get what you are trying to say too, I agree that while we need to close our borders and REALLY crack down on illegals, at the same time we need to streamline the system of getting honest people who want to fill these farm jobs and make it easier for Farmers to get through the ponderous system of clearing them for work. We give all these tax breaks to businesses that are coming to this area, wheres the relief for farmers, especially those struggling to stay afloat.
I also have to comment here about the BS with GCEDC's bonuses, it seems pretty excessive in my viewpoint, especially since the county supplies them with some funds as well, I think that just 25% ( a reasonable amount I think ) of that so called bonus money would lighten the load on county taxpayers and ease the burdens of the load on the tax base that the GCEDC gives out to startups. To me all I see it as is greed pure and simple, these people not only collect such large amounts of bonuses.... but they also make sure to publicize it to us as well, isnt that just plan and simply rubbing our faces (those of us not earning those vast sums of cash) in the fact they are wealthy?
Maybe Howard that would be a good survey question.... approx how many times over is just Steve's year end bonus over your yearly income 2x 4x 8x 10x?
We need to pull back we have
We need to pull back we have no need to be in this many countries anymore. Why are we in Belgium or Norway?
US Deployments by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
200 years ago, the mindset of
200 years ago, the mindset of our political leaders was to keep to ourselves(western hemisphere). We are spread so thin, our homeland is in peril of invasion, decay and wasteful neglect. We should get back to worrying about us, and stop thinking we are the world's police. There are countries in this world that have been fighting far before the US even existed. And they'll still be fighting hundreds of years from now. Let's mind our own business, and get the flock out of all those foreign countries. Use all the war money to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewer lines, etc.
Idealists like Ron Paul and
Idealists like Ron Paul and his supporters believe that if we close all overseas bases and pull all our troops home, our enemies will leave us alone. This thinking is naive and dangerous.
We are not dealing with an enemy that thinks rationally. They are hell bent on destroying western culture and it's people. Entire nations have declared their intent to destroy us, Israel, and our allies. Our presence is necessary to deter such thoughts from becoming actions.
We have enemies with nuclear weapons in both hemispheres. Iran will on board with them soon. And we should sit home like good little pacifists??
I agree that better use of our troops through improved strategic placement is necessary. But bringing them all home is not an option.
I get so pissed at the world economy, the way we are dumping tax dollars to many enemies,and the abuses we suffer through the United Nations, I sometimes feel we should revisit the Monroe Doctrine. Sadly, that is impossible in this day and time.
Realists like Ron Paul and
Realists like Ron Paul and his supporters believe that if we close all overseas bases and pull all our troops home, our enemies will diminish in their capacity to wage endless war. This thinking is mature and and will make us safer.
The naive and foolish among us think that if we keep spending our resources killing people overseas that somehow they will hate us less.
History has shown that war begets war.
We are trillions of dollars in debt. The surest way to ensure the destruction of the United States is keep spending money on unwinnable wars fighting an enemy who believes that they can sucker us into weakening our economy and spreading our resources thin so as to ultimately see us fall. So far, we're playing into their hands.
The patriotic answer is to protect our borders and take care of our own and eliminate our debt.
The facts speak for
The facts speak for themselves.
Ron Paul has received more campaign donations from active military personal than all other presidential contenders, including Obama, and more than all of the other Republicans COMBINED.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-pau…
I would rather have the
I would rather have the troops on the Mexican border than the Korean border.
Howard, why does defense
Howard, why does defense spending always have to be the target when talking about cutting spending. I agree hat we must begin to live within our means.We have done that in the past with overseas troop levels higher than then are today. What about entitlements like welfare and medicaid. What about earmarks? What about all the silly "research" projects like the mating of Great Lakes salmon? I
You and I have disagreed in the past, but I don't think that we have ever been thhis far apart on an issue.
Are you saying that if we abandon all foreign bases that we will then be "out of sight, out of mind"?!?!
They want to kill us. period. I'd rather fight them over there then here.
Are you saying that terrorists will abandon their efforts if we withdraw!!????!!!
A direct quote from Joe Biden that you must agree with:
""Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," Biden said. "There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy, because it threatens U.S. interests."
Ron Paul a realist? Laughable, my friend.
Bob, everything needs to be
Bob, everything needs to be on the table to cut. The size of the government needs to be massively reduced, and to be truly conservative means putting military spending on the table, too, by the billions, and the only way you're going to do that is end foreign military entanglements (as the FOUNDERS intended).
Mostly, they want to be left alone.
War begets war. You can't argue against that. It's proven throughout history. The only logical outcome of the foreign policy you espouse is the destruction of the United States. Is that your hope?
Bob, selectively reducing the
Bob, selectively reducing the number of U.S.troops stationed around the globe does not mean abandoning a strong defense or our allies. It does however mean that our allies need to pick up more of the costs for their own national defense.
Our placement of air bases in Saudi Arabia and unconditional support or defense of what ever Israel does, the invasion of Iraq that on the basis of questionable intelligence if not outright lies and continued support for self-installed autocrats are the underlying and unresolved reasons we have so many enemies in the mid-East, Africa and Asia. The hate filled venom spewed by far right Islamaphobes doesn't help either.
I too find the world economy is leaving our country behind but that has more to do with corporate interests and an idustrial policy here that have put profits ahead of people and ahead of loyalty to the people of United States.
Blaming the United Nations is an often repeated cannard that simply detracts from any serious discussion, it provides a table for nations to sit and attempt resolutions to disputes. Although I will admit Colin Powell's holding a vile of powder and claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to gain the security council resolution that was the used as the pre-text to invade Iraq does support your contention that "the abuses we suffer through the United Nations". However, that does not provide a reason to abandon the U.N. and its purpose as an institution.
I must have missed the news about the nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies in both hemispheres. I wasn't aware that there was another nuclear armed country in this hemisphere other than the our own that is unless you were refering to the quote of the great philosoper Pogo who once said "we has met the enemy and it is us".
Bob, read the CIA's reports
Bob, read the CIA's reports on blow-back, I think it might put your mind at ease if we closed bases around the world. If you can't find it let me know and I'll find you the link.
Terry, the only results of a
Terry, the only results of a blow back search are wiki and blogs. cia.gove contains nothing.
To those of you (all? :) that disagree with me, do you contend that "pretty please can we have our drone back" is a viable foreign policy?
Ans before you state that our drone shouldn't have been there, please justify our sitting idle while a madman that vows to destroy western culture (and Israel) realizes his dream of nuclear weapons.
Isn't "defense" named so in
Isn't "defense" named so in order to defend ourselves/our nation? Or is defense to be used as offensive-line pawns fighting battles for other nations? If the government were my household and we were on the brink of losing it all, I bet one of the first things I would cut from our budget would be the Brinks alarm system, after all, what good is a defense system if there is nothing left to protect?
Bob; Here is the reading list
Bob; Here is the reading list Ron Paul suggested to Rudy Guiliani, regarding the 9-11 attacks
http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy-Paul-reading-list/lm/RJML1CA9L0NCZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAt6Pf7jZjA
Dave,you beat me to
Dave,you beat me to it.
Something else that should be looked at is the effects that sanction have against average people. The people most affected by these sanctions are the poorer people that have the least to do with any of there governments policies. Its reported and confirmed by Madeleine Albright that because of the sanctions against Iraq in the 1980's 500,000 children starved to death or died because of lack of sanctioned medication. If I watched my family starve to death because of a p*ssing match between power hungry leaders my feelings towards the offending nation might slowly change to extreme.
As the world sees it we are a nation that is governed by the people. If our governments recklessness kills 500,000 children in their eye's the people of the US killed 500,000 children. When our government puts a offensive military base next to a sacred mosque the people of the US built that military base.
Foreign policy and foreign occupation creates blow back.
Sorry Terry, just trying to
Sorry Terry, just trying to help "win hearts and minds" LOL. The military/industrial complex which we were so famously warned of needs to have a bogeyman out there to justify the excessive defense spending that becomes huge profits. A lot of the perceived threats are just plain made up. I haven't heard of a shred of actual evidence that Iran is processing uranium in a way that can be used to make a weapon. Their reactors truly are for energy. And before I'm called an appeaser, let me say that I believe we should respond swiftly and forcefully to any actual threats. We have the best intelligence available, our NSA and Military Intelligence apparatus will know if a threat is real or not. There will always be sabre rattling, just like when I was a kid on the playground, other guys will challenge you and then when you stand up to them, they run off. The real threats will stand still, then you have a decision to make. Step up or step off. What we are doing is hanging around looking for a fight.
(edited to change "plutonium" to read "uranium" I don't know how to build a nuclear bomb and neither do those Iranian bozos)
Bob, It's the waste in the
Bob,
It's the waste in the Defense department. A recent example is that there are now 970 flag officers (That's generals and admirals with 1 star to 4 star ranks). That's more than before the wars started up, at the same time the number of enlisted troops has been falling. Each of these flag officers has a staff and command. Retired Sec of Defense Gates wanted to cut them and targeted some unnecessary commands to be eliminated. Gates is gone and the number of generals and admirals now goes up.
We spend years trying to decide on a new rifle for the military, the same with the new pistol, and then do the whole thing over and over, wasting more and more money. The army wasted millions of dollars changing it dress uniform from green to blue when barracks needed to be upgraded instead. This is just an example of why the defense budget needs to be reduced.
Did you know we have troops stationed in the Sinai desert? What a waste of money that is.
The only threat to our nation
The only threat to our nation is our own government bring everyone home. 300 years from now, when and if the United States collapses historians will point back at our nation to show how it's history repeating its self as the most powerful nation / empire on the globes government overspends it's self and drives the nation into the ground.
Europe can defend it's self. Israel can defend themselves - before you say Ahmadinejad is crazy, know that he does not have control over the Army. Ahmadinejad doesn't have all that much power. Khamenei is the one who has supreme command of the armed forces, can declare war, and who has ultimate judicial authority, and he's the one who's been in power for 22 years.
CJ, 300 years? Man, you're an
CJ, 300 years? Man, you're an optimist. I say more like 50, unless something radical happens to change our present course.
I agree that we could pull
I agree that we could pull back most of our military forces and leave some countries all together. We should keep a few strategy bases with skeleton crews to keep them maintain for rapid military deployment if, necessary. To be so naive, that leaving the radicals of the world alone will make us safer is the thoughts of a "FOOL". People of this country believe all of the world thinks the way we do.
However, if we did pull back and maintain a few bases oversea, it would definitely save this country billions of dollars every year. Besides our military is a rapid deployment military which can reach anywhere in the world in efficient time so, we really do not have to rely on some many oversea bases. If, enlarge our bases here it, would create more jobs for the Americans rather than some host nation.
John, thinking that we can
John, thinking that we can control the actions of the radicals in this world by sheer force is truely the thought of a fool. We need to close ALL of our foreign bases. Deploying our Navy task forces around the world's seven seas will provide us a defense net that noone can came close to. Besides the Army and the Air Force just drop the ball most of the time anyways, keep them at home shinig their shoes and practicing marching. That way the Navy won't have to always bail them out. Anchors Aweigh my boys!!!!
Well my little semen, where
Well my little semen, where did I mention using sheer force to control radicals. I know! NO WHERE. You truely hold a blind eye to the dangers of the world. Hmmm here are some historical facts for you. What did the Japanese view Americans as during WWII? What did Al-Quieda view Americans as before 9-11, the bombing of the USS Cole (Talking about dropping the ball.), etc.... The key word is "Weak". When American show restraint and did not attack our enemies classified the US as weak. Now yes in both cases we prevailed but, we allowed both to hit home before we woke up.
STOP, with the if, we leave them alone, they won't bother us. It like telling a Chicken to pay no attention to the Fox, he won't eat you.
Having the Navy do our defense from sea, that is funny. You are talking about the same service that places their name on their bum so, they know who they are screwing. Don't drop the soap Sailor or Anchors Aweigh boy.
Having a few bases doesn't mean having thousands of personnel, they can be communication, logistical sites. Beside every where I served was on a host nation base or a Foward Operating Base (aka FOB).
Oh I take it you served in the Navy if, THANK YOU for your service Brother.
Having a military base in
Having a military base in another country is a show of force and intimidation and it causes resentment. Host nation bases would be a different thing, I was at quite a few of them. But since you have ordered me to stop.......I guess I better.
Howard at least we can agree
Howard at least we can agree on the time frame. We may differ on the reasons, but we certainly agree that our nation's future viability is in serious doubt.
Dave, your last statement is the epitome of political correctness. How dare we instill resentment in the radical islamic terrorists. Better to withdraw and let them bring the fight to us, right?
Where are they bringing the
Where are they bringing the fight? They don't have a navy or an air force, the only way to us is through faulty home land security. Bring the troops home, take them off North Koreas border and put them on ours.
I think we're more than
I think we're more than capable of dealing with the most radical elements of Islam -- a subset of a subset of Islamic aspirations -- without spending billions on foreign wars and occupations and deployments.
The main goal of invading Afghanistan -- capturing and/or killing bin laden -- was accomplished years after the fact and not through military might, but through intelligence and strategic use of the best our military has to offer.
Having a military base in
Having a military base in another country such as England, Germany, Italy is not something that causes resentment. If, that is the case Sir, then have your so called Navy deployed around the world is a intimidation factor. So, what are you going to call it now? Defends or Intimidation you cannot have it both ways Dave.
As Howard stated that Ron Paul and he both believe we need to stop foreign aid to other countries because, it costs the taxpayers. Funny thing is that Howard also, feels we need open our entire border and stop harassing illegal immigrants. He does not seem concern with the taxpayers paying for free education, medical or welfare for these people either.
Oh, if we stop with foreign aid would that cause resentment Dave?
Howard I thought you being a
Howard I thought you being a former Security Policeman for the USAF would understand more than you know.
Afghanistan is a catch 22 topic. Propaganda for the radicals would be immense. Do not think for one minute they would not use this. They will tell the world that, they have conquer two super powers. Our issue now is the amount of drugs that are produce there and sent throughout the world to support the radical islam campaign. Once again Dave and you believe these people think the way we think.
So, there is another reason that it would be dangerous to pull out. I do agree though I would rather get out but, we are damn if we do and damn if we do not. Either we fight the war on terrorism or the war on drugs. However, I have serious doubts the war on drugs would be view by you as protecting our country. Either way they are both expensive.
The main goal of invading
The main goal of invading Afghanistan -- capturing and/or killing bin laden -- was accomplished years after the fact and not through military might, but through intelligence and strategic use of the best our military has to offer.
Howard, so, you would agree then have a few bases overseas such as Communication and Logistical would be consider strategic? After all these type of bases would not house thousands of military members. They would be more of an early detection type defense and could transform into support for an offensive nature, just like Dave suggested with the Navy.
CJ what was 9-11, the
CJ what was 9-11, the bombings of US Embassies, bombing of the USS COLE, the first attack on the Twin Towers, etc....
No there will never be another 9-11, How NAIVE you really are.
John, having men of war
John, having men of war sailing in international waters is not anywhere near the same thing as stationing military forces on sovereign soil. Yes, rule the seas, protect the USA, no question. I was just joking about the Army and AF dropping the ball, Busting ya'lls chops a little. They can however improve readiness better here at home and the AF has a huge intelligence mission which can mostly and is mostly done from the US. And yes, stopping all foreign aid I'm sure will cause some resentment, but at least we won't be arming them to use against us anymore. I think defense should be just that, defense not offense.
Bob; what CJ and Howard said
Bob; what CJ and Howard said
CJ, tell that to the
CJ, tell that to the survivors of the 3000 murder victims.
Dave, I know you were busting
Dave, I know you were busting my chops, that is why I busted back. We all serve the same flag brother.
Sure is the same Dave. BTW, how does having military communication and logistic installatons differ from the Navy patroling the seven seas? It does not.
These are low cost compare to the major installations. They both provide early detection. The logistic helps boots on the ground when needed. War cannot be won or defended by air or sea alone.
Stopping foreign aid won't keep them from arming or bring the fight to the US. They already have operatives here and are have more seeping in from the south.
Dave, all I know if, we stay clueless to the new dangers of the world we are setting ourselves up for failure as well.
You can look at foreign aid as just arming the enemies of the US. Granted there are some cases like that because, we do not secure the aid. We give it to them and then the warlords strip it from them.
The US needs to help others as long as they are willing to help themselves. We should of never rebuilt Iraq with our money, we should used their oil sales to fund this.
The factor you leave out of
The factor you leave out of all of your comments is the COST.
We are out of money.
Soon, we'll be paying more in interest on our debts than on the actual expense of running the country.
Not that I agree with assertions, but there is simply no, none, nada, justification for continuing the expensive of running a Department of Offense. Interventionism costs too much money and there are acceptable alternatives.
I repeat: We are out of money. And until we come to grips with that reality, our country has no future, with or without radical Islam. Radical Islam is a very minor problem compared to the enormity of this nation circling the drain because of too much spending, too big of a government.
Right Howard "COST" is the
Right Howard "COST" is the main problem. However, you feel the military is our only wasteful spending. Well lets also remember that Welfare is being abused more and more; illegal immigrants that come in and get free education and medical (At the expense of the taxpayers, not to mention some of them steal social security numbers.); Social Security funds being abused; an government that lines its own pocket; businesses are moving out, which means less jobs, which means less taxes collected, etc.... OH LETS NOT FORGET "OBAMA HEALTH CARE" so, Howard are we going to sustain that enormous cost? I know you were Pro-Obama before.
I agree we should pull back most oversea bases but, to leave a few communication and logistical bases intact for early detection and defense. They are not going to break the bank anymore than above problems issues.
Heck, people stated in their comments to station our troops on our borders. I am surprised you did not flare up with that comment. You failed to learn from history lessons.
This Country's down fall is not because, our military. Our down fall is because, big business is moving out, Americans take little pride in their work (It is just a job mentality.), our government has become self serving.
Kodak prime example, "Dead Thinking", their CEOs believe that film will never die. Then along came the digital era and Kodak sat on their hands till it was too late.
Oh by the way I never stated that you said, Islam is a Peaceful religion. They self claim they are a Peaceful Religion.
I stopped reading right here:
I stopped reading right here: "However, you feel the military is our only wasteful spending. "
Where the HELL have I EVER said that?
I really, really hate it when people speak for me. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't twist my words. Don't mischaracterize my words. If you're going to debate me, do so truthfully.
That is my opinion of you.
That is my opinion of you. After all, you act like that our involvement with other country is what is leading to the collapse of our country. You do not feel illegal immigration is cause for it because, they help farmers pick crops. So, I assume you feel that our involvement with other countries and having bases overseas are the only issues. It is not a mischaracterization of you. Notice one thing Howard when I quote what someone said, I use quotations so, if you look at that statement there is not any.
You defended illegal immigration and failed to be concerned about the drain it puts on our country. As far as welfare goes I really do not know where you stand. Do you feel that businesses leaving this country are an issue? So, before you rant that I am misquoting you, check for my quotation marks. I am just voicing my opinions on my observations. Sorry, if I hurt your feelings though, I was not quoting you in that remark.
Oh BTW, here is an example of
Oh BTW, here is an example of me quoting.
"Where the HELL have I EVER said that?"
(See the use of quotations.)
John, Again, you're saying
John,
Again, you're saying things I never said.
Not ONCE have I defended illegal immigration. I've defended the need for farmers to have dependable labor. That's not the same thing as defending illegal immigration.
I'm going to stop responding to you. You are obviously incapable of discussing issues in a mature and rational matter. Your mode of operation is to misrepresent what people say and then argue against your fiction. There's no way to hold a rational discussion with such a line of argument.
Howard, you do support
Howard, you do support illegal immigration. In your own comments you felt that illegal immigration laws are too aggressive. That you felt the laws are a waste of time and that we should just open the border because, farmers were hurting for workers. So, Howard you are defending illegal immigrations. You are not being honest with yourself and as far as me rational I am.
I'm not taking the bait.
I'm not taking the bait.
It is not about taking bait
It is not about taking bait Howard, it is about being true with one's self.
More bait.
More bait.
Hello everyone, just getting
Hello everyone, just getting caught up with the thread. To:John... While I agree that welfare is heavily abused and needs reform there are other places that need some fixing besides the military. The military budget is the biggest, and you of all people know how on your end of that budget our troops didnt have enough armor and the there are big charges for little things (ie the 3000.00 toilet seats and 800.00 hammers etc) But imho this expenditure of the Govt that any senator or congressman has health insurance for life and pensions that are ridiculous, even if they leave office in shame or are kicked out, thats a big one. Same with covering others after they have left their jobs in federal or state govt. Its ridiculous to talk about taking away from those who struggle while those that usually have the means and wealth to contribute end up w free health and retiremen. Have the same accountants that figure middle class ssi and ssd figure out reasonable pkgs for these people.
Howard... I get what you are trying to say too, I agree that while we need to close our borders and REALLY crack down on illegals, at the same time we need to streamline the system of getting honest people who want to fill these farm jobs and make it easier for Farmers to get through the ponderous system of clearing them for work. We give all these tax breaks to businesses that are coming to this area, wheres the relief for farmers, especially those struggling to stay afloat.
I also have to comment here about the BS with GCEDC's bonuses, it seems pretty excessive in my viewpoint, especially since the county supplies them with some funds as well, I think that just 25% ( a reasonable amount I think ) of that so called bonus money would lighten the load on county taxpayers and ease the burdens of the load on the tax base that the GCEDC gives out to startups. To me all I see it as is greed pure and simple, these people not only collect such large amounts of bonuses.... but they also make sure to publicize it to us as well, isnt that just plan and simply rubbing our faces (those of us not earning those vast sums of cash) in the fact they are wealthy?
Maybe Howard that would be a good survey question.... approx how many times over is just Steve's year end bonus over your yearly income 2x 4x 8x 10x?