The Grand New Party

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

You never saw Red Dawn?

[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

You never saw Red Dawn?

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.

[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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

[firstdown]

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.FBI Credits Informant for Helping Bust New York Terror Plot - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I'm putting my life on the line I want the Ferraris and hope the guy I'm fighting has the Acura.

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

[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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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.

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[saden1]

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).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

Thats even better.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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.

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.

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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?