Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558810]How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.[/quote]

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;558827]I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.[/quote]

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558824]None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

[B]I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.[/B][/quote]

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558842]The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.[/quote]
Which is why we need to drill more of our own oil so we can tell the middle east to go screw themselves. There is not one good reason not to drill for more oil in America. The environmental argument makes no sense because the oil is getting drilled no matter what. If we don't drill it, the Arabs will, and then we have to buy it for them. Plus we would probably get the oil in a much cleaner way because we actually care, so it would actually be better for the environment.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=The Goat;558847]Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.[/quote]

I think your facts are coming from a biased slant, but truthfully, I don't have any better facts. However, the governments primary military job is our defense, and I know they have had successful tests of the system. My other argument goes more to a logical assertion.
If missile defense did not work, then Russia would not have had conniptions when putting the system in eastern europe. Instead, the threat alone nearly killed Russian American relations. To me, that says that the research has produced some benefits.

Our government should attempt to protect us from the threat of incoming missiles. That is a far more real threat than a land invasion ever has been. And yet we maintain a huge Army that can do very little for our self-defense. We should invest what it takes to protect us from real threats.

Having said that, if it is the black hole effect that bothers you, I certainly understand that, and SDI ought to be open to scrutiny and proof that they are progressing.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558842]The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.[/quote]

We can and should get our oil from our own resources, but on the other hand, countries will sell us oil. If they don't they would lose a heap lot o' money.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558842]The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.[/quote]

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we [I]need[/I] the oil. The problem is that it doesn't belong to us.

I need more money -- that doesn't mean I can stroll into a bank with a gun and demand that they hand it over. I also can't figure out how or why anyone in the middle east, no matter who is in power, would deliberately cut off the flow of oil to the biggest consumer of it. Even when Saddam Hussein was in power after the first Gulf War we still bought oil from Iraq.

If they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to sell oil to us we would simply go to other sources. Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America anyway.

And steveo395 is exactly right; drill for our own oil resources here so we don't have to deal with the neanderthals in the middle east.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=The Goat;558847]Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.[/quote]

Also, while 1TRILLION dollars, or 3 TRILLION if we go high is ungodly amount of money, if you put it in context of nearly 30 years, and then consider what our government has spent over that same 30 years, I would still maintain, that this project is actually what we should spend money on. My whole argument rests in my belief that the military should first and foremost defend our country from the most realistic threats. What are those?
1) has to be a terrorist attack - this requires intelligence work to protect us

2) sub launched or air attacks - Naval and Air Force are required for this

3) attacks against our satellites - SDI and its off chutes are required to protect these

4) a missile attack, most likely one or two fired, not likely that any country would have the capacity to flood our airspace with missiles. - SDI again is the only reasonable defense, along with retaliatory capabilities

5) I honestly can't envision a scenario where a ground attack against US soil could occur without 1-4 having occurred and been successful. That means we have little need for a STANDING army. We do need equipment properly maintained, and an officer corps, but the soldiers should come from some sort of 2 year mandatory service, or something.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558842]The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.[/quote]


How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait?

I could see Iraq too. We should cozy up to the Russians. They're swimming in oil. Executive Outcomes are protecting the Nigerian oil fields. I see no national interest in Europe?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558874]How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait?

I could see Iraq too. We should cozy up to the Russians. They're swimming in oil. Executive Outcomes are protecting the Nigerian oil fields. [B]I see no national interest in Europe[/B]?[/quote]

Is the military to defend national interests, and how is that defined. The broader the definition, the broader the scope of the military. Some, like Clinton, have argued our national interest lies in peace in Bosnia/Herzogovenia, others like Bush, argue it lies in Iraq. As long as that is the criteria for our military, it will never really be reduced. I think you can make a successful argument for European stability being in the US' economic national interest.

I think the conversation should shift back to having a defensive vs offensive military posture.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558824]None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.[/quote]

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;558868]See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we [I]need[/I] the oil. [SIZE=4]The problem is that it doesn't belong to us. [/SIZE]

I need more money -- that doesn't mean I can stroll into a bank with a gun and demand that they hand it over. I also can't figure out how or why anyone in the middle east, no matter who is in power, would deliberately cut off the flow of oil to the biggest consumer of it. Even when Saddam Hussein was in power after the first Gulf War we still bought oil from Iraq.

If they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to sell oil to us we would simply go to other sources. Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America anyway.

And steveo395 is exactly right; drill for our own oil resources here so we don't have to deal with the neanderthals in the middle east.[/quote]
Thats why we buy the oil like when you guy to Best Buy and purchase an item.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;558868]See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we [I]need[/I] the oil. The problem is that it doesn't belong to us.

I need more money -- that doesn't mean I can stroll into a bank with a gun and demand that they hand it over. I also can't figure out how or why anyone in the middle east, no matter who is in power, would deliberately cut off the flow of oil to the biggest consumer of it. Even when Saddam Hussein was in power after the first Gulf War we still bought oil from Iraq.

If they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to sell oil to us we would simply go to other sources. Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America anyway.

And steveo395 is exactly right; drill for our own oil resources here so we don't have to deal with the neanderthals in the middle east.[/quote]
Because there are some crazy ass people over there. We can't just walk away because we ahve a vested interest in the region. Plain and simple. I agree that it would be nice to be able to do such things but we can't.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558877]So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.[/quote]

Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

All the points about drawing back I agree with in philosophy but they all get caught up in real world realities. We're not leaving Europe. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men and women fighting to keep their freedoms and we aren't just up and leaving them with their ass in the wind. The problem is national security isn't very simple. The arguments that defending ourselves mean we have to go out into the world to keep threats from originating before they get to us isn't frivolous. It makes sense...and it is an inordinately subjective premise. At least in application.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=FRPLG;558882]All the points about drawing back I agree with in philosophy but they all get caught up in real world realities. We're not leaving Europe. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men and women fighting to keep their freedoms and we aren't just up and leaving them with their *** in the wind. The problem is national security isn't very simple. The arguments that defending ourselves mean we have to go out into the world to keep threats from originating before they get to us isn't frivolous. It makes sense...and it is an inordinately subjective premise. At least in application.[/quote]
I do understand this, but if this is still about a "new" party's defining principles, I maintain that the ideal should be one of minimal military intervention, and to maintain a defensive posture. If we did that it would lead to a natural reduction in the Army, and a greater emphasis on the Intelligence divisions, and a strong navy, air force and local space command (not missions to galaxies 5million lightyears away). None of this diminishes the role of National Security, but does lead away from Presidents having to occupy our Army with missions outside of our borders.
I make most of my arguments here in the context of where we should be heading, not necessarily, where we could be tomorrow.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558869]5) [B]I honestly can't envision a scenario where a ground attack against US soil could occur without 1-4 having occurred and been successful.[/B] That means we have little need for a STANDING army. We do need equipment properly maintained, and an officer corps, but the soldiers should come from some sort of 2 year mandatory service, or something.[/quote]You never saw Red Dawn? :)

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558874]How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait?

I could see Iraq too. We should cozy up to the Russians. They're swimming in oil. Executive Outcomes are protecting the Nigerian oil fields. I see no national interest in Europe?[/quote]I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter.

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558886]You never saw Red Dawn? :)[/quote]

I did, loved it at the time. I should add it to the list of movies that made me cry, when they were reading the monument memorial at the end.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558887][B]I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter. [/B]

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.[/quote]

Our founding fathers, who many admire, warned of Foreign entanglements. Yes our obligations matter, but they should not override our sensibilities.

Maintaining a strong defense does not have to be a sign of weakness, and you can have a huge military like we do, but if your political leadership is weak, you will not be respected anyways.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558881]Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.[/quote]
If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Not sure if you guys saw that we arrested 4 terrorist today that wanted to bomb some building and shoot down planes. Man Bush really did a good job seting up home land security.[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520961,00.html]FBI Credits Informant for Helping Bust New York Terror Plot - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com[/url]

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558890]If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.[/quote]

ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558889]Our founding fathers, who many admire, warned of Foreign entanglements. Yes our obligations matter, but they should not override our sensibilities. [/quote]Agree, but to keep Russia, China, Iran in check is definitely in our national interest. The world is far too interconnected and the "ponds" that sheltered us in the 20th century, don't provide the protection they used to. We start backing away from our allies and that will embolden those who wish us ill will.

[quote]Maintaining a strong defense does not have to be a sign of weakness, and you can have a huge military like we do, but if your political leadership is weak, you will not be respected anyways.[/quote]Roger that! I was in the military under Reagan and Bush 1, vastly different since Clinton. Agree we can scale back sheer manpower (which is a tremendous cost), but we must keep the technological advantages we've enjoyed for the last 60+ years. Although there should be stronger oversight of these programs.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558894]ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.[/quote]
The enemies we're fighting today are driving Yugos. But, the Russians & Chinese are always working on Ferrari's, they have some pretty good Acuras, and the Chinese have a whole lot more manpower than we do.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558895]Agree, but to keep Russia, China, Iran in check is definitely in our national interest. The world is far too interconnected and the "ponds" that sheltered us in the 20th century, don't provide the protection they used to. We start backing away from our allies and that will embolden those who wish us ill will.

Roger that! I was in the military under Reagan and Bush 1, vastly different since Clinton. Agree we can scale back sheer manpower (which is a tremendous cost), but we must keep the technological advantages we've enjoyed for the last 60+ years. Although there should be stronger oversight of these programs.[/quote]

I was in under Bush1/Clinton, and the difference was amazing. I think we can do both, reduce manpower properly, and reduce expenditures in technology, while not just ignoring the other aggressors in the world. BUT our defense spending currently is more than all the other nations combined, so we either are a) really stupid and thus need to spend that much more, or b) just grossly over spending. I generally say b.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558896]The enemies we're fighting today are driving Yugos. But, the Russians & Chinese are always working on Ferrari's, they have some pretty good Acuras, and the [B]Chinese have a whole lot more manpower than we do[/B].[/quote]

yeah, but a couple neutron bombs thrown in the mix would even that out. and seriously, unless we engage them in their land, an aggressive posture, they aren't sending waves of chinamen against our borders.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

Man power is irrelevant when dealing with a nuclear capable nation. You only invade countries that don't have THE Bomb (see Iraq vs North Korea).

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;558894]ok, but most of the guys we are fighting are driving Yugo's.[/quote]
Thats even better.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=The Goat;558847]Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.[/quote]I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative"]Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558887]I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter.

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.[/quote]

No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons. Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too!

Do you actually believe that the Chinese or Russians could get an armada across the pacific without being nuked? All it takes is one Sub to survive and Russia and China would get leveled. So eff em. I'm not affraid of those Commie bastards. They out numbered us in Korea too but they couldn't beat us.

Why leave 150k troops on the N.Korean border when the S.Koreans have a million? I'm not going to die for Isreal. Feel free to take my place.

This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558906]No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.[/quote]The treaties we have in place have nothing to do with Afghanistan. We are not at war with Afghanistan

[quote]Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons.[/quote]That's why former Soviet bloc countries want to be part of NATO. Does NATO have the same significance it once did, of course not. But pulling our forward deployed troops home makes it a whole lot harder to project firepower where we need it and sends a real bad message to the hard-liners in Russia.

[quote]Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too! [/quote]I couldn't care less if Israel is wiped out or S. Korea, you're right, screw them. Let's say Iran drops a nuke on Israel and we respond and hit Iran, how many millions of people will die in this exchange? How about N. & S. Korea? I guess it would be OK to just stand by and say, "It's not our problem". How many U.S. servicemen exactly have died confronting Iran or N. Korea in the last 20 years?

[quote]This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.[/quote]This is the problem with the strict Libertarian isolationist BS. Stopping the communists from taking the Korea peninsula was not "nothing". Bringing down the Berlin Wall was not "nothing". The millions of lives that were saved by the actions of the U.S. over the last 80 years is not "nothing". No nation has saved more lives and helped more people live in freedom in the history of the world. Had we sat back and not gotten involved in WWI or WWII the world would be a much worse place. Had we not stopped the Soviet Union's expansion the world would be a much worse place.

No one is advocating being the "world's policeman", but this is 2009, not 1789 and the world is a much more interconnected place than the founding father's envisioned.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;558906]No those treatise mean nothing because the Japanese and Koreans don't have armies in Afghanistan. Look how many troops the Germans and French gave to help us out. That's a big slap in the face if you ask me. We save them from invasion but when it comes time for them to pony up, it's eff you.

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons. Bad guys, what-ever? You must be a true believer. Who cares of Iran, or N.Korea gets the bomb? We've got thousands of them and can make them quickly. We're the only people who've ever used them too!

Do you actually believe that the Chinese or Russians could get an armada across the pacific without being nuked? All it takes is one Sub to survive and Russia and China would get leveled. So eff em. I'm not affraid of those Commie bastards. They out numbered us in Korea too but they couldn't beat us.

Why leave 150k troops on the N.Korean border when the S.Koreans have a million? I'm not going to die for Isreal. Feel free to take my place.

This is the problem with Americans in general, Democrat and Republican. Somehow, somewhere, some of us got bamboozled into thinking we were the light of the world and the world's policemen. That's nothing more than Wilson Progressive Socialist BS. There's nothing new about it and it gets young men killed for nothing.[/quote]

America saved its ass first...everything we do is in our national interest first, someone else's interest second. Period! No one owes us anything beyond a generic thanks and if they do they paid it a long time ago. No one is your indentured servant.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

I just don't get why we as Americans have spent so much time trying to figure out what to do with people who want to kill us. I'm sure the terrorist have been laughing at us everytime they see us arguing over torture and what we can and cannot do when they just chop the peoples heads off.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Beemnseven;558815]Fabulous post. Well said.

I was just thinking today about what specific policy initiatives the Republicans could champion since we didn't exactly hear anything like that in Michael Steele's speech yesterday.

The first two that immediately come to mind are tax reform and energy. Those issues seem to be something the American people could relate to, and something Republicans could take the lead on. With taxes, they should really commit to the idea of reforming the tax code, either with a flat tax for every single American or a national retail sales tax. I heard a comment the other day that really stuck with me -- [I]the government should have no right to know how much money you make.[/I] The federal income tax is an outdated, inefficient, and unfair way to collect revenue. Highlight these points to distinguish from the Democrats who continue to rely on antiquated taxing methods which date back to the 1860's.

With gas prices sure to rise yet again this summer, we'll have the opportunity to drive the point home that it is insane not to tap our own natural resources to free ourselves from foreign oil.

Obviously the Republicans have no power to carry out these ideas with actual legislation. The point though, is to make the American people associate the GOP with bold, fresh ideas. With congressional elections coming around the corner, they can't afford to wait.[/quote]

The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx"]more Americans think their current tax burden is about right[/URL] and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans [URL="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/12/sports/sp-jock-tax12"]don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K[/URL] so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558905]I would suggest actually doing some very basic research on the program. Your numbers are grossly overexaggerated and the $$$ from this program has funded much research and development. In addition to the technology advances, the SDI initiative was key into bringing down the Berlin wall.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative"]Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Social Security and Medicare are vastly more costly entitlement programs, not research and development programs. What tangible items do we have from Social Security and Medicare?[/quote]

Whooops somebody caught me!!! Seriously the published numbers on SDI are no more reliable than those we get from Halliburton. Look at total DOD outlays since the '80s and we're talking tens of trillions of dollars. The vast majority of that sum is unaccounted for, meaning because it's classified we don't know where it goes, unless chance happens to uncover it. Do u guys remember when those research students uncovered the billions we gave to Pol Pot, supposedly to fight Vietnam? I mean nobody would have thought it possible. There's room for argument where DOD money goes, whether into various SDI related programs or $1000 toilet seats or whatever. My intuition is look for the most complicated, futuristic weapons system and that's where you'll find the black hole. Personally I think that's why Gates has initiated a shift away from that game.

I don't know if your comments on SS and Medicare are serious? I mean what we get is an older population, my very old grandparents included, who can eat and keep a roof over their head. If to you that is worth nothing there's not a lot of room for conversation here...we're coming from vastly different value systems.

...btw I agree w/ CRedskinsRule take on the legitimacy of threats we face. SDI is a wonderful idea...i guess the bottom line is after all this time there's little to show for the investment.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;558912]The treaties we have in place have nothing to do with Afghanistan. We are not at war with Afghanistan

That's why former Soviet bloc countries want to be part of NATO. Does NATO have the same significance it once did, of course not. But pulling our forward deployed troops home makes it a whole lot harder to project firepower where we need it and sends a real bad message to the hard-liners in Russia.

I couldn't care less if Israel is wiped out or S. Korea, you're right, screw them. Let's say Iran drops a nuke on Israel and we respond and hit Iran, how many millions of people will die in this exchange? How about N. & S. Korea? I guess it would be OK to just stand by and say, "It's not our problem". How many U.S. servicemen exactly have died confronting Iran or N. Korea in the last 20 years?

This is the problem with the strict Libertarian isolationist BS. Stopping the communists from taking the Korea peninsula was not "nothing". Bringing down the Berlin Wall was not "nothing". The millions of lives that were saved by the actions of the U.S. over the last 80 years is not "nothing". No nation has saved more lives and helped more people live in freedom in the history of the world. Had we sat back and not gotten involved in WWI or WWII the world would be a much worse place. Had we not stopped the Soviet Union's expansion the world would be a much worse place.

No one is advocating being the "world's policeman", but this is 2009, not 1789 and the world is a much more interconnected place than the founding father's envisioned.[/quote]

That's fine. You and your children can go die for someone else's freedom. Those same people that you saved will spit in your face after you've given them everything. If sticking your nose in everyone else's business is what you call conservative then I can understand why we had jerks like the Bushes and McCain run the GOP.

NATO is BS. As members of NATO you have to come to the aid of a nation that is attacked. That token army they threw up isn't squat and everyone knows it. Bush tried to get more troops, eff you. Obama thought he'd get more troops because he wasn't "a go it alone guy like Bush". They just told Obama to eff himself too. If we're not at war in Afghanistan then why is our army there, tea, opium? Lie to me, tell me something.

Going into the eastern bloc is a big mistake. If you think Russia will allow Georgia and the Ukraine to become members of NATO without a fight you've got another thing coming. The best thing to do is let the Commies be and not rub their noses in s**t. We might need the Russians in the future.

We didn't bring down the Soviets. Their own ignorant marxist economist brought them down. Just like the ignorant marxist in our government are bringing us down.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=saden1;558919]The energy debate was lost last summer to Obama in bipartisan fashion if I am not mistaken. Both Hillary and McCain tried and got booed off the stage. And it seems that the tax debate was lost to Obama too. Recent polls indicate that [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/117433/Views-Income-Taxes-Among-Positive-1956.aspx"]more Americans think their current tax burden is about right[/URL] and Obama has no intention of changing the current scheme for those earning under 250k (minus dividend rate hike that's schedule to go into effect in 2014). Plus most Americans [URL="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/12/sports/sp-jock-tax12"]don't give a rats ass about people making over 250K[/URL] so how do you convince them that they're better off under a new tax plan? Everyone has ideas, the key is selling it to as many people as possible so you can reach that 50% + 1 threshold.[/quote]
Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. Its only time until he blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.

Re: The Grand New Party
 

[quote=firstdown;558929]Problem is he cannot pay for his agenda by only raising taxes on people making over 250k per year. [B]Its only time until he[/B] [B]blames Bush for causing him to increase taxes on people making under 250k[/B]. He has already broken a bunch of his campaign promises.[/quote]
when did he say this?

Re: The Grand New Party
 

So, I think I have laid out what I would consider a basic platform for an opposition party:
Increase State's Rights and Responsibilities
- Eliminate "Federal Bribery" laws - or laws where the Federal government forces a State action by withholding funding if the State does not act in accordance with Federal mandates
- Place Responsibility for Education at the State Level by disbanding the Dept of Ed
- Same with others as said earlier
Reduce Federal Obligations and Authority
- bring cabinet positions and Federal policy in line with the ideals of the Constiution
- reduce/eliminate campaign on morality based issues (ie abortion/death penalty) and push for more aggressive campaigns based on limited govt.

Return the Military to a Defense First posture
- in a responsible manner draw down the standing army and increase the role of the Reserve Army.
- increase intelligence assets
- maintain air and naval capabilities

Obviously this is a shell platform, But here are my questions:
a) what level of support would this platform find in the undecided mobs

b)what would your ideal platform include/not include


(70Chip-my thesis for the my GVPT 600 class is tomorrow so I have slacked on work today ;) )