Every troop home, navy to guard US floating assets only and if an American gets (*)(*

Every troop home, navy to guard US floating assets only and if an American gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up abroad it is on them!

 

Sounds like isolationism to me.

 

Oh no we still trade and the like we just withdraw military assets.

 

Seriously. I was in Belize, and there were American troops there even.

What is with the USA putting troops everywhere???

 

Is this something you are promoting or something from an actual source?

 

There are plenty of libertarian minded people who feel this way and many democrats (not progressives or lefty liberals but democrats). Politicians that feel this way generally belong to third parties and are not allowed to speak.

 

I have no problem with you speaking your mind, but a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of where it comes from.

 

Bad idea? We should have dealt with terrorism by leveling the supporting countries. Not by going in and rebuilding. We are broke! Don't you get it? We don't need new carriers and rail guns we need factories re-opened and tariffs imposed. We need to kick out every illegal and give americans a choice... take the job or get no benefits.

We need change now as hope flew out the window on the Obama rainbow.

 

I tend to agree. The extent and breadth to which the United States military defends and enhances this country's rights and freedoms is tremendous. Extensive retrenchment merely sets this country back in this regard by decades, not years.

 

Really? So tell me about that. To hell with the world! Republicans are as bad as domocraps! Tax, spend and borrow or tax, invade and borrow.

When we fall - and we will if we stick with either party or both - where will we be? Where will my children be?

 

Amen to that brother!
You really should consider registering independent or something. Your party consists of fools and tyrants.

You dont belong.

 

“Bad idea?”

Taxcutter says:
Yeah. Bad idea. Your idea throws away strategic depth. Strategic depth is a parameter of warfare where you measure your “margin of error.”

Russia has tremendous strategic depth. They lose a battle and the enemy is still a long, long way from their heartland. Israel has no strategic depth. The Russians lost battle after battle with both Hitler and Napoleon and survived. Israel is one defeat from devastation and two battles lost from a reprise of Auschwitz. Given a choice I prefer an approximation of Russia’s strategic depth as opposed to that of Israel. You plan puts our defensive front right at our legal borders. Given the power and range of modern weapons, that is sheer craziness. The Democrats show no urge to defend those borders. I prefer to confront our enemies as far as possible from our borders. One guy called it “Always play away games.”

I do think we should bring our troops home from the Balkans. Madeleine's War has been over for a long time.




“We should have dealt with terrorism by leveling the supporting countries.”

Taxcutter says:
Agreed. The Jackson/FDR policy of leaving smoking holes has a lot of merit.


“We are broke!”

Taxcutter says:
Even with two wars going, 55% of our outlay went to entitlements. Even completely zeroing out defense doesn’t balance the books. If the fact we’re broke hurts we gotta cut entitlements. That’s where the money is.


“…we need factories re-opened…”

Taxcutter says:
Ain’t gonna happen until the mountain of regulation is rescinded and the hounds of litigation are kept away from US manufacturers.



“…we need … tariffs imposed…”

Taxcutter says:
Beware of trade wars. The US is the world’s No.3 exporter and we have A LOT to lose in a trade war. Maybe some tariff adjustment is possible, but no amount of tariffs are gonna bring back businesses driven under by regulation, litigation and excessive taxation. All that happens is that prices get higher for US consumers.



“We need to kick out every illegal…”

Taxcutter says:
You know perfectly well that isn’t possible. First order of business is to secure the border. If a 1,900 mile Berlin Wall is necessary then its necessary. The US has successfully absorbed far larger immigration. I say: Stop the leak first. Then deport all the illegals who are in the Big House for other felonies. Then hit all remaining illegals with a $1,000 per head fine and give them a Social Security number, and let them compete for jobs on the same basis as everyone else. Actually the Obama Depression has self-deported more illegals than anything you can imagine.


“…give americans a choice... take the job or get no benefits.”

Taxcutter says:
Agreed. No work. No eat.



“We need change now as hope flew out the window on the Obama rainbow.”

Taxcutter says:
Agreed.

 

Yes I am talking about closing off soil bases and reopening US bases. To hell with the rest of the world. Until the other countries start paying the full bill for US forces covering their interests they can (*)(*)(*)(*)ing burn!

RiseAgainst what do you think I am!

 

You giving your input on this is like a pornographer saying women should continue groqing up in fatherless homes.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that you are a democrat.

But you are conservative. You have a moral compass. A working mind. God.

You dont belong.

 

Lets take but one example: United States military presence in the Asian Pacific. There are many reasons for troop deployments and operations in the region. Protecting Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) is one reason. Providing a counter-balance against China guerra de course/access-denial naval action is another reason. Imposing constant deterrence regarding North Korean nuclear development is imperative. Fulfilling longtime security arrangements with countries such as Japan is necessary. I could go on and on, but you get the point. United States military operations are integral in protecting the rights and freedoms of this country and our allies with which we are so dependent on for resources, etc. Extensive retrenchment merely hinders this assurance.

Of course, there are reasons for calculated retrenchment. The war in Afghanistan is a big reason. However, we cannot make drastic changes. That will do more harm than good.

 

If we're going to be everyone's savior (think of every humanitarian mission in the past three decades), we need to be everywhere.

 

Now how many trillions do we protect? How many trillions of other countries money do we protect? They can pay us or defend themselves! They all pay or we go away!

 

Correct. The Strait of Hormuz is a viable SLOC for US and international trade, particularly with regards to oil and natural gas transportation. Not having a credible US naval presence in the region would be disastrous not only for US interests, but global interests.

 

Sorry but no. We may not like being the world's policeman but it is what it is. The world is a mess, the world without us, with us locked behind our own borders is a nightmare. If that is the case "your free trade" will not exist you cannot have it both ways.

 

Archer0915


Archer0915


Archer0915: Having read some of your threads, I'm thinking I feel like a Libertarian. I can't remember why I discounted Ron Paul anymore but I know I had a reason. I am probably an isolationist and will be ridiculed for that but what has being interventionist done for us lately? Other than platitudes, give me one good reason our children have been murdered defending nations that hate us? Why have we always entered wars only to defeat our "enemies" by making them stronger at our own expense and then been hated for helping them? I could go on but you get my gist.

 

I agree. For a long time, United States foreign policy has involved a strategy of cooperative primacy. To fulfill the latter quality requires a global military hegemony. The United States has this capability, and, while we could do better, we use these capabilities in an efficient and effective manner.