[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Irrelevant. Look at the evidence, if McCain has his way there will be another hundred years of that nonsense:
[/quote]
Did you even understand his point? He wants to stabilize Iraq so our presence there is akin to our presence in South Korea or Japan. His choice of words for “100 years” was in response to some isolationist questioner - McCain isn’t known for his patience.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Irrelevant. Look at the evidence, if McCain has his way there will be another hundred years of that nonsense:
Did you even understand his point? He wants to stabilize Iraq so our presence there is akin to our presence in South Korea or Japan. His choice of words for “100 years” was in response to some isolationist questioner - McCain isn’t known for his patience.[/quote]
Sorry, but I have a real problem with even consdering such a long term commitment. Let’s take care ourselves for once and stop spending American treasure and blood on these nations.
Look, I have supported the Iraq security mission, so far. But, my patience is measured in a handful of years, not decades. I have serious problems with the American Taxpayer subsidizing the defense of other nations while we at home are looking foward to tough times. Mounting debt, weakening dollar, entitlement programs threatening to bankrupt us, etc.
Let Japan and S. Korea speand the wealth of THEIR citizens to maintain their own defense. And not too far in the future (I hope) Iraq should take over their own defense, completely.
There is an excellent reason Ron Paul is getting more donations from the military than any other candidate.
And it’s got nothing to do with the gold standard…
[quote]
Jason32 wrote:
Irrelevant. Look at the evidence, if McCain has his way there will be another hundred years of that nonsense:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Did you even understand his point? He wants to stabilize Iraq so our presence there is akin to our presence in South Korea or Japan. His choice of words for “100 years” was in response to some isolationist questioner - McCain isn’t known for his patience.
Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but I have a real problem with even consdering such a long term commitment. Let’s take care ourselves for once and stop spending American treasure and blood on these nations.
Look, I have supported the Iraq security mission, so far. But, my patience is measured in a handful of years, not decades. I have serious problems with the American Taxpayer subsidizing the defense of other nations while we at home are looking foward to tough times. Mounting debt, weakening dollar, entitlement programs threatening to bankrupt us, etc.
Let Japan and S. Korea speand the wealth of THEIR citizens to maintain their own defense. And not too far in the future (I hope) Iraq should take over their own defense, completely. [/quote]
How much blood is being spent in South Korea, Japan or Germany? You can very well take the position that the U.S. military shouldn’t be stationed abroad - but I think you’d be in the minority. So McCain’s stating that he’d like to continue that post WWII status quo for international military commitments hardly counts as a Howard Dean scream…
McCain was fielding a question from an anti-Iraq isolationist, and, given his general temperment, did pretty well.
Well, Ron Paul was excluded from the Fox forum, oddly. Not to be discouraged, Ron Paul held his own. To me, he he does very well here in presenting his ideas.
Pt.1 - YouTube
Pt.2 - YouTube
So, anyone questioning American interventionism is now tagged “isolationist”?
In any case, here’s the pic Jason posted:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
How much blood is being spent in South Korea, Japan or Germany? You can very well take the position that the U.S. military shouldn’t be stationed abroad - but I think you’d be in the minority. So McCain’s stating that he’d like to continue that post WWII status quo for international military commitments hardly counts as a Howard Dean scream…
McCain was fielding a question from an anti-Iraq isolationist, and, given his general temperment, did pretty well. [/quote]
I was under the impression that our bases in S. Korea, Japan, and Germany acted as a defense in those nations (and, somehow, ours). Therefore, we are prepared to spill the blood of our own in their defense. Not to mention our own treasure. So yeah, we are subsidzing the defense of other regions and nations with both, blood and treasure.
And, what of it, if N. Korea was to invade S.Korea in our absence? Does anyone really think we’d be next on the N. Korea conquering tour? Extend that question to other nations and regions we’re presently subsidizing.
Now I’m hearing McCain spout off about 100 years. What? That’s not what I supported. Sure, we needed to give the Iraqis a chance to stand up, but maybe 100 years? Bull. If they can’t be bothered to stop killing each other, or unite against foreign Islamists running rampant through their communities, or to resolve key political issues, screw it.
I really believe that if we don’t withdraw from policing the world (right or wrong), the economics of it will eventually force us to do so. And, I think it will be alot harder on us in that situation.
And, I do think it’s a Howard Dean scream. Well, if this makes it’s rounds through the mainstream media, it will be. No doubt, the successes of the Surge have toned down criticism over the Iraq security mission. However, I seriously doubt the American people are ready to spend more tax money and more soldiers for decades for yet another military commitment.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
Irrelevant. Look at the evidence, if McCain has his way there will be another hundred years of that nonsense:
Did you even understand his point? He wants to stabilize Iraq so our presence there is akin to our presence in South Korea or Japan. His choice of words for “100 years” was in response to some isolationist questioner - McCain isn’t known for his patience.[/quote]
What purpose does it serve to have military bases in these countries. Maybe at one time directly after war, but now?
All it does is serve to bleed more money from American taxpayers, create anti-American sentiment and boost the local economies of those countries.
Do you honestly believe that without the U.S. policing the world that every other country would turn into a basket case?
And just think about how much it would benefit the American economy if all the troops were brought home. The housing market alone would turn around almost overnight from its current downward spiral.
[quote]Jason32 wrote:
…And just think about how much it would benefit the American economy if all the troops were brought home. The housing market alone would turn around almost overnight from its current downward spiral.[/quote]
Are you serious? Bringing home all those soon to be unemployed people?
And I do think the world would go to shit without our presence and ability to project power.
Unemployed? Maybe they could defend the porous borders.
It’s a shame you have so little faith in the rest of the world. I guess without the U.S., mankind would cease to exist as we know it.
If things keep going the way they are with the American economy, the world might soon find out if you’re right Zap.
[quote]Jason32 wrote:
Unemployed? Maybe they could defend the porous borders.
[/quote]
While that is a different topic I think the only way to
slow illegal immigration is to remove the incentives.
Tanks and planes aren’t going to do it.
If we closed all the overseas military bases we would shrink our military dramatically. They would all eventually get jobs so I was kidding a bit about the unemployment.
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
[quote]
If things keep going the way they are with the American economy, the world might soon find out if you’re right Zap.[/quote]
Perhaps. I am not such a pessimist. Our economy is still strong but we may be headed for a recession but we will recover. We will straighten out our government mess.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
[/quote]
Kind of like when GB left India or the SU the East European countries…
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India [/quote] Pakistan [quote]or the SU the East European countries[/quote] Kosovo[quote] …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…[/quote]
Thanks for making my point.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws. [/quote]
As opposed to what? Last I checked, you knowingly transformed Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.
The USA has the longest stick in the house, and you don’t need to be have hundreds of bases in a hundred different countries to project power.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
…And just think about how much it would benefit the American economy if all the troops were brought home. The housing market alone would turn around almost overnight from its current downward spiral.
Are you serious? Bringing home all those soon to be unemployed people?
[/quote]
Since when was the military supposed to be a form of welfare?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Jason32 wrote:
…And just think about how much it would benefit the American economy if all the troops were brought home. The housing market alone would turn around almost overnight from its current downward spiral.
Are you serious? Bringing home all those soon to be unemployed people?
Since when was the military supposed to be a form of welfare?
mike[/quote]
It is not. They have a job to do and they do it well. I just wanted to point out that eliminating our overseas presence will result in a huge downsizing of the military.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The USA has the longest stick in the house, and you don’t need to be have hundreds of bases in a hundred different countries to project power.[/quote]
Sit down Lixy, I’m about to agree with you.
You’re right, the US doesn’t need to keep large portions of the world on military welfare to project it’s power. We have the worlds greatest air and sea capabilities, along with the greatest navy the worlds ever seen. Militarily, the US could have a powerful presence anywhere in the world in short time.
My feelings however, are that we should finish what we started in Iraq before we leave. Personally I think this is just the right thing to do. But yes, this is true; the US needs to bring the troops home worldwide. I find it interesting when people who vehemently call for the US to pull out of Iraq, think it’s also a good idea to keep our bases and troops in place world wide. Doesn’t make sense IMHO.
Pat Buchanan said in his book “A Republic, Not An Empire”, that the US has “handed out war guarantees to nations like white house souvenirs”. The US needs to dissolve it’s defense treaties, bring our troops home from the military welfare of other nations, tell the UN to take a hike, and get back to being a quiet powerful republic with free trade worldwide.
[i]It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world
-George Washington[/i]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India Pakistan or the SU the East European countries Kosovo …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
Thanks for making my point.[/quote]
Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.
So what is your point?
Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB and that the Kosovo nothing to do with the SU while millions of now free and prospering people were glad to see that superpower go?
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Ancient history and recent history show it gets bad when the superpower withdraws.
Kind of like when GB left India Pakistan or the SU the East European countries Kosovo …
It was a nightmare…
Wait a minute…
Thanks for making my point.
Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.
So what is your point?
Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB and that the Kosovo nothing to do with the SU while millions of now free and prospering people were glad to see that superpower go?
[/quote]
Since Pakistan was part of India when the Brits left it doesn’t count? The place is a disaster and they have nukes. Bad situation.
I am aware that Yugo was “independent” but they were still heavily in the Soviets camp. That place would not have broken up and those atrocities would not have happened if the Soviet Union didn’t collapse.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That place would not have broken up and those atrocities would not have happened if the Soviet Union didn’t collapse.[/quote]
Whom should we be crediting for said collapse?
