The Grand New Party

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we need 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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we need 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.

Thats why we buy the oil like when you guy to Best Buy and purchase an item.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we need 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.

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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?

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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?

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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.

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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.

The treaties we have in place have nothing to do with Afghanistan. We are not at war with Afghanistan

Bigger stick? The cold war is over. There is no use for NATO anymore other than to sell weapons.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.