The alternative is to find ourselves in wars in which 2/3’s of our population can’t figure out why the hell we’re involved, and thus oppose the war (like Iraq). Good luck with that.
Edit: And I wouldn’t expect a Republican comeback until they figure this out for themselves.
Is it any wonder why war divides us??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Failure to stand firm will encourage rogue countries the world over to act.
I bet they see our actions in the same light. They have to stand firm. Then we get into another missile crisis, neither side backing down, other nations in the region yelling at us and them to stop the penis waving contest, and missiles/missile defense on both sides will be withdrawn to cool down the heated situation, leading us back to square one.
How about stop putting ourselves into dangerous positions where we have to stand firm for no other reason than to save face?
What is your solution? Be specific.
Don’t place missile defense in a location that excites the Russian Regime’s own fears? Why are we placing ourselves between Iran/Russian and Europe. Europe can siphon money off it’s welfare programs if it needs the extra defense.
We don’t need to play Paladin all over the world, looking for monsters to slay, and getting ourselves into tense situations where then we supposedly can never backdown. Secure OUR borders, and give the American people thier peace dividend. It’s long overdue.
So your specific solution is to immediately, in the face of the Russian threat, scrap our missile defense plan in eastern Europe? To directly submit to Russia’s threat? To back down pronto in the face of the bear and run?
If you did not mean precisely the above then you need to be more specific with your answer.
Yes, actually that is what I’m suggesting. Who do you and I owe our loyalty to? Easteran Europeans? What is the purpose of an American taxpayer funded US military? To place missile defense in Eastern Europe? Huh?
We wouldn’t have to back down in the future, if we’d stop placing ourselves into situations where we KNOW there’ll be a dramatic escalation in tensions. Or we could stretch ourselves so thin, commit to so many possible-maybe wars, that we can’t even defeat a third world Taliban in a country that actually harbored Bin Laden.
OK, now take your solution and as objectively as possible develop the cons to taking your approach. Surely you won’t suggest there aren’t any?[/quote]
Realistic cons? No. This is where someone will try to convice me we’ll find ourselves ruled by a Russian or Iranian overlord.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Failure to stand firm will encourage rogue countries the world over to act.
I bet they see our actions in the same light. They have to stand firm.
Then we get into another missile crisis, neither side backing down, other nations in the region yelling at us and them to stop the penis waving contest, and missiles/missile defense on both sides will be withdrawn to cool down the heated situation, leading us back to square one.
How about stop putting ourselves into dangerous positions where we have to stand firm for no other reason than to save face?
What is your solution? Be specific.
Don’t place missile defense in a location that excites the Russian Regime’s own fears? Why are we placing ourselves between Iran/Russian and Europe. Europe can siphon money off it’s welfare programs if it needs the extra defense.
We don’t need to play Paladin all over the world, looking for monsters to slay, and getting ourselves into tense situations where then we supposedly can never backdown. Secure OUR borders, and give the American people thier peace dividend. It’s long overdue.
So your specific solution is to immediately, in the face of the Russian threat, scrap our missile defense plan in eastern Europe? To directly submit to Russia’s threat? To back down pronto in the face of the bear and run?
If you did not mean precisely the above then you need to be more specific with your answer.
Yes, actually that is what I’m suggesting. Who do you and I owe our loyalty to? Easteran Europeans? What is the purpose of an American taxpayer funded US military? To place missile defense in Eastern Europe? Huh?
We wouldn’t have to back down in the future, if we’d stop placing ourselves into situations where we KNOW there’ll be a dramatic escalation in tensions. Or we could stretch ourselves so thin, commit to so many possible-maybe wars, that we can’t even defeat a third world Taliban in a country that actually harbored Bin Laden.
OK, now take your solution and as objectively as possible develop the cons to taking your approach. Surely you won’t suggest there aren’t any?
Realistic cons? No. This is where someone will try to convice me we’ll find ourselves ruled by a Russian or Iranian overlord.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone expects that but we would certainly be paying a modern form of tribute.
Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Failure to stand firm will encourage rogue countries the world over to act.
I bet they see our actions in the same light. They have to stand firm. Then we get into another missile crisis, neither side backing down, other nations in the region yelling at us and them to stop the penis waving contest, and missiles/missile defense on both sides will be withdrawn to cool down the heated situation, leading us back to square one.
How about stop putting ourselves into dangerous positions where we have to stand firm for no other reason than to save face?
What is your solution? Be specific.
Don’t place missile defense in a location that excites the Russian Regime’s own fears? Why are we placing ourselves between Iran/Russian and Europe. Europe can siphon money off it’s welfare programs if it needs the extra defense.
We don’t need to play Paladin all over the world, looking for monsters to slay, and getting ourselves into tense situations where then we supposedly can never backdown. Secure OUR borders, and give the American people thier peace dividend. It’s long overdue.
So your specific solution is to immediately, in the face of the Russian threat, scrap our missile defense plan in eastern Europe? To directly submit to Russia’s threat? To back down pronto in the face of the bear and run?
If you did not mean precisely the above then you need to be more specific with your answer.
Yes, actually that is what I’m suggesting. Who do you and I owe our loyalty to? Easteran Europeans? What is the purpose of an American taxpayer funded US military? To place missile defense in Eastern Europe? Huh?
We wouldn’t have to back down in the future, if we’d stop placing ourselves into situations where we KNOW there’ll be a dramatic escalation in tensions. Or we could stretch ourselves so thin, commit to so many possible-maybe wars, that we can’t even defeat a third world Taliban in a country that actually harbored Bin Laden.
OK, now take your solution and as objectively as possible develop the cons to taking your approach. Surely you won’t suggest there aren’t any?
Realistic cons? No. This is where someone will try to convice me we’ll find ourselves ruled by a Russian or Iranian overlord.
I don’t think anyone expects that but we would certainly be paying a modern form of tribute.
Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.[/quote]
And thus, third-worlders will embarrass us in many a war to comeas we find ourselves stretched across the globe. Stretched across the globe, bidding good-bye to tax dollars and lives, because not saving a Georgian today means we’re paying tribute tommorow. Just declare Forever War and be done with it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
<<< And thus, third-worlders will embarrass us in many a war to comeas we find ourselves stretched across the globe. Stretched across the globe, bidding good-bye to tax dollars and lives, because not saving a Georgian today means we’re paying tribute tommorow. Just declare Forever War and be done with it.
[/quote]
The world IS war. Always has been, always will be. He with the biggest gun and a willingness to effectively use it, which doesn’t always mean firing, wins. Failure to recognize that and act accordingly is a guaranteed recipe for eventual defeat.
We would have the money, hardware and personnel to deal with ANYTHING any 10 countries could throw our way if only, IF ONLY, we would stop wasting our resources on destructive domestic social programs. They are accomplishing our enemies work for them.
Don’t hold your breath though. Barney Frank has already proposed a 25% cut in defense spending to make way for financing more of our own demise.
I wonder what leaving Eastern Europe open for Russian conquest would do for the ‘world’s view of America’?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And thus, third-worlders will embarrass us in many a war to comeas we find ourselves stretched across the globe. Stretched across the globe, bidding good-bye to tax dollars and lives, because not saving a Georgian today means we’re paying tribute tommorow. Just declare Forever War and be done with it.
[/quote]
Yup, perpetual war for perpetual peace. The Iraq War cost us, by a very conservative estimate, $1 trillion (see Reason magazine, the June or July issue, for the math). Defending South Korea, Europe, and a host of other (wealthy) countries costs us hundreds of billions a year. So hey, let’s bankrupt ourselves to the point that we ARE weak. But at least we won’t LOOK weak in the process.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
I wonder what leaving Eastern Europe open for Russian conquest would do for the ‘world’s view of America’?
[/quote]
And when and why would Russia be “conquering” Eastern Europe? They had enough trouble in Chechnya over the past decade. You may have noticed in Georgia that they rolled in and rolled out.
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
I wonder what leaving Eastern Europe open for Russian conquest would do for the ‘world’s view of America’?
[/quote]
They’d have the peaceful, non-interventionist, and non-premptive striking (since an attack from us wouldn’t have followed an attack against us) USA. Exactly what the world wants. So, if the world does decide Russia can’t be allowed to attack Eastern European nations, I suppose they best get to spending their tax dollars building up their own militaries.
Edit: No more relying on the US spending huge amounts of money. All the while the world villifies us when they don’t agree with a war we’re in, yet sing our praises when we jump into THEIR causes.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yeah, you’re right, they’ve never done it before. Why would they start now?[/quote]
Gdollars has an explainable school girl crush on all things Russian - he can’t be convinced that Russia has any designs outside of peace, harmony, and international goodwill.
So it doesn’t look like Obama is rolling over for the Russkies…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
So it doesn’t look like Obama is rolling over for the Russkies…
BBC NEWS | Europe | Obama denies Poland missile vow [/quote]
It looks like he is weasel wording it. Not good.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So it doesn’t look like Obama is rolling over for the Russkies…
It looks like he is weasel wording it. Not good.[/quote]
Fucking hell,you’re a hard sell hehe
[quote]pushharder wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Yeah, you’re right, they’ve never done it before. Why would they start now?
Gdollars has an explainable school girl crush on all things Russian - he can’t be convinced that Russia has any designs outside of peace, harmony, and international goodwill.
So now we know who was waving the hammer and sickle at Bama’s version of Palm Sunday.
[/quote]
The guy’s probably even lying about not being born in a manger. Krypton my ass!!!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So it doesn’t look like Obama is rolling over for the Russkies…
It looks like he is weasel wording it. Not good.[/quote]
Looks like he’s standing up without necessarily sparking a confrontation. The talk is soft, and it seems as though any time he needs a big stick he can declare the military technology ‘workable’.
The question is whether or not he’ll be able to see accurately when that time comes.