'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.

Well, I thought you were opposed to all those guys in riot gear? What do we need one in the US for?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.

Even in areas not in our control? Neutral territory? What happens when these pirates retreat to sovereign waters? - Do we end our chase? Do we violate another country's territorial waters? Or are just supposed "patrol only"? What size Navy is acceptable? Do we protect allied shipping? Might that draw us into foreign conflicts of which we have no part?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol

Iran is, at the least, doing a lot of saber rattling concerning its ability to manufacture and produce a nuclear weapons and affecting trade through the Straits of Hormuz. Are you comfortable with that particular regime having nuclear weapons? Do you believe it might have a destabilizing effect on the region? Might it have negative consequences for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq? If our allies in the region are, in fact, directly threatened by such developments what should our response be? How effective would they be with no military force to back them up?

Iran to unveil new nuclear fuel advance - report | Reuters:
"[Iran's] Spent fuel can be reprocessed to make plutonium, potential bomb material, but Western worries about Iran's nuclear programme are focused on its enrichment of uranium, which can also provide the core of nuclear weapons if refined much more."

"Western powers fear that Iran's uranium enrichment programme is part of a covert bid to develop the means to build atomic weapons - suspicions that were given independent weight by a detailed U.N. nuclear watchdog report late last year."

Iran threatens to shut Straits of Hormuz with military manoeuvre | Mail Online:

"Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane as tensions between it and the West mount following the capture of an unmanned American spy plane."

"Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, said his country was preparing to close off the crucial Strait of Hormuz as part of a military exercise."

"Around a third of all shipped oil passes through the four mile-wide Strait between Oman and Iran and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage."

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.

So, we w/draw our military support of Taiwan (our 9th largest trade partner with a two-way trade of approximately $62,000,000,000). At the same time, we withdraw our troops from Japan and S. Korea. Okay. Nothing but good can come from that scenario - especially, when China decides to force the issue with Tiawan and presents them with the ultimatum "Assent to reunification or be invaded".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?

So, if we stop our drones, no one will spy on us? We shouldn't be flying our drones in an attempt to gain intelligence? We shouldn't try to shoot the drones over our space down? We shouldn't fund the military to protect the integrity of our air space? I thought the only military expense you acceeded to was home defense? What's your point?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old?

Yes. No. Sorta. Is there an Al Queda terrorist behind every door? Nope. Do they still exist and are they still a threat to the US? Yes. What level of threat? Not sure - but enough of one to make sure we have resources to track and respond to them. In equating AQ with a "boogie man under the bed", are you suggesting we end funding of counter-terrorist military spending?

Current Al Queda leadership seems more interested in establishing a jihadist Middle East state rather than direct attacks on the US. With that said, however, ignoring their existence, pretending they pose NO threat or irrationally discounting the threat they do pose is being just as intellectually foolish as those who see AQ terrorists under their bed at night.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US.

What a BS response but a typical one for you - brilliantly logical and even handed. You truly delve into the crux of the issue. Not glib, one-sided or arrogant in any way.

So, the US govt. is the equivalent, moral and otherwise, to the autocratic, isolationist govt. of NK currently headed by a 29 year old with absolute power and no governing experience and access to weapons grade nuclear fuel. Oh, by the way, did we mention that this govt. borders our 7th largest trading partner and the world's 15th largest economy?
No worries, we've already w/drawn our troops.

Like it or not, we are a global nation with far flung interests and allies. We get drawn into the "World's Policeman" role to often and to easily. Sometimes from our own short sightedness (Iraq), sometimes believing it necessary (Afghanistan) and sometimes out of a desire to assist (Somalia comes to mind). Regardless, while a draw down should occur as we pull back from Afghanistan and Iraq, the days of isolationism are well past us and a strong, responsive military is necessary to uphold our promises to our friends and to ensure our trade.

Yup, we could do as Paul says and, essentially, withdraw from the world stage, but I suggest it would be economically devastating on many levels and a tragically destabilizing event in the world.