• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Pentagon’s Worst Nightmare’

On that, me and every successfully defended nation, as well as every military theorist in history agree.

Unless, of course, you can provide an historical example that proves me wrong. Um, can you?
Maybe one. Fabian strategy involved avoiding battle. It was remarkably successful. The general case you make is, in my opinion, correct. Here is the link.
Fabian strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I don't know about anyone else but it seems to me that the hawkish foreign policy has not been good for our pocket books, among other things (such as our reputation). It's time to reduce the number of wars we are constantly engaged in, and start pulling back our resources to restore our homeland to its former glory. The idea that we could spend whatever we wanted to at home while engaging in so many foreign campaigns might have been a lovely dream for some, but it's time to wake up and smell the roses.
 
I don't know about anyone else but it seems to me that the hawkish foreign policy has not been good for our pocket books, among other things (such as our reputation). It's time to reduce the number of wars we are constantly engaged in, and start pulling back our resources to restore our homeland to its former glory. The idea that we could spend whatever we wanted to at home while engaging in so many foreign campaigns might have been a lovely dream for some, but it's time to wake up and smell the roses.

Do you have any evidence to prove anything you posted? Historically speaking, you're wrong.
 
That's still an offensive strategy.
No. Strategic defensive.

Hannibal's army was an army of conquest. Fabius was named defender of the land. He prepared Rome for Hannibal's attack. Then he Began to deal with Hannibal. He had all of the people along Hannibal's expected march routes burn the crops, buildings and despoil their fields. This is a defensive measure. It is not offensive in nature. From that point it was guerrilla tactics of small raids followed by rapid retreats.

For the Romans the Army must remain intact. If defeated Rome's allies would abandon Rome. So Quintus Fabius Maximus avoided battle.

An offensive strategy would have taken the battle to Carthage and pulled Hannibal out of Rome.
 
On that, me and every successfully defended nation, as well as every military theorist in history agree.

Unless, of course, you can provide an historical example that proves me wrong. Um, can you?

Sorry, I have no interest in the whole imperialistic hegemony thing. I support the Libertarian position on Defense - mind our own business and only attack others when we are attacked. We have too many problems here at home than to be flittering away trillions of dollars trying to force people at the end of a gun to run their governments like ours.

Besides creating an unmanageable debt, it is just not the way I was taught to treat others.
 
Sorry, I have no interest in the whole imperialistic hegemony thing. I support the Libertarian position on Defense - mind our own business and only attack others when we are attacked. We have too many problems here at home than to be flittering away trillions of dollars trying to force people at the end of a gun to run their governments like ours.

Besides creating an unmanageable debt, it is just not the way I was taught to treat others.

I take exception. I don't think our aim is to make other people run their governments like ours. I think we are acquiring natural resources at the end of a gun. Our energy companies seem to own a sufficient supply of our politicians to influence them to use war to acquire centralized distribution of energy control and reap their profits. Note that they do not need to own the energy, just the distribution network to profit handsomely. That way you cannot accuse them of stealing the energy. We need the energy countries to have leaders who will OK the distibution contracts with our Centralized Distribution of Energy monopolists. Geez, they'll probably only profit to the tune a nickel a gallon. Ought to be a song about it , don't you think?
 
I take exception. I don't think our aim is to make other people run their governments like ours. I think we are acquiring natural resources at the end of a gun. Our energy companies seem to own a sufficient supply of our politicians to influence them to use war to acquire centralized distribution of energy control and reap their profits. Note that they do not need to own the energy, just the distribution network to profit handsomely. That way you cannot accuse them of stealing the energy. We need the energy countries to have leaders who will OK the distibution contracts with our Centralized Distribution of Energy monopolists. Geez, they'll probably only profit to the tune a nickel a gallon. Ought to be a song about it , don't you think?

Of course your are right. I just didn't go that far into it in my post above. That conclusion is obvious from reading the Energy Task Force Report, Energy Challenges for a 21st Century, where they recommend a military option for the oil resource in Iraq, which was written well before the 9/11 attack.
 
I take exception. I don't think our aim is to make other people run their governments like ours. I think we are acquiring natural resources at the end of a gun. Our energy companies seem to own a sufficient supply of our politicians to influence them to use war to acquire centralized distribution of energy control and reap their profits. Note that they do not need to own the energy, just the distribution network to profit handsomely. That way you cannot accuse them of stealing the energy. We need the energy countries to have leaders who will OK the distibution contracts with our Centralized Distribution of Energy monopolists. Geez, they'll probably only profit to the tune a nickel a gallon. Ought to be a song about it , don't you think?

I've heard this for a decade. I wish we would get these resources already. It's been long enough.
 
I've heard this for a decade. I wish we would get these resources already. It's been long enough.

We are! Big oil is back in Iraq for the first time in over 3 decades, when they were kicked out when Iraq nationalized its oil.
 
No. Strategic defensive.

Hannibal's army was an army of conquest. Fabius was named defender of the land. He prepared Rome for Hannibal's attack. Then he Began to deal with Hannibal. He had all of the people along Hannibal's expected march routes burn the crops, buildings and despoil their fields. This is a defensive measure. It is not offensive in nature. From that point it was guerrilla tactics of small raids followed by rapid retreats.

For the Romans the Army must remain intact. If defeated Rome's allies would abandon Rome. So Quintus Fabius Maximus avoided battle.

An offensive strategy would have taken the battle to Carthage and pulled Hannibal out of Rome.

Offensive, in the sense that it involves choosing the time and place to attack.
 
I believe the big thing here may not be the amount of cuts, but what the remaining money is spent on.

I would like to see a change in the way Defense Contracts are handled who gets those contracts. I believe that American Companies need to given preference in all cases and the only Nations who should be outside America need to limited to The U,K, Canada, and Australia, thus creating jobs, and insuring the flow of important items we need in times of war.
 
Last edited:
I believe the big thing here may not be the amount of cuts, but what the remaining money is spent on.

I would like to see a change in the way Defense Contracts are handled who gets those contracts. I believe that American Companies need to given preference in all cases and the only Nations who should be outside America need to limited to The U,K, Canada, and Australia, thus creating jobs, and insuring the flow of important items we need in times of need.

You limit the bids and the costs will soar for the same contracts
 
You need to surgically cut the defense...bottom line is this in my mind...if you have our young men and women on the battlefield they DESERVE the best of the best we can give them in equiptment, weapons and the most technologically advanced offensive and defensive equipt and weapons...REGARDLESS of the cost. If you dont like how much that costs that simply bring OUR KIDS HOME but until you do bring them home...PAY FOR THEM RISKING it all for YOU

You can bring home unnecessary deployed troops that in are peacetime areas and close those bases that cost a fortune to maintain...like germany, like japan...make S Korea pay for our protection costs that are in much better fiscal shape than we are...and other posts around the globe that arent serving any real purpose. Cut adminstrative costs whatever it takes...but keep our troops in the best if your going to keep them in combat.
 
The system is based on the lowest priced bids. You will notice that the Major contracts for planes and choppers of all sizes are domestic companies, as all very many of the smaller items such as firarms.
 
Back
Top Bottom