"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
What a load of neo-con nonsense (the highlighted part).
Talk about an over reaction to this.
The Ukraine illegally changed governments with a coup of a legally elected (if crappy) government. And the masses are fine with that.
Then the Crimea government overwhelmingly decides to have a referendum, which they do and they vote to join Russia (no surprise considering most Crimeans are of Russian decent PLUS the new government in Kiev had previously decided to basically ignore Russian as an official language from then on). And the west freaks out. Funny how the west thought it was wonderful when ex-Soviet republics just broke away from the crumbling SOviet Union. But it's an entirely different matter if the Crimea votes to break away from the crumbling Ukraine.
But the Neo-cons use this as a pretext to start arming again...this is a dream to them; an incident that cost America nothing (except the stupid billion they 'lend' to the Ukraine) and gets the ignorant masses scared of Russia again thus justifying beating the cold war drums again. They must be in a little heaven.
Then this OP suggests that America must 'maintain military credibility''abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case'.
America, even with these 'drastic' cuts' will spend about 7 times what Russia does on it's military and still will be spending more then Russia, China, Japan and the U.K. combined...and this despite running a $500+ billion dollar deficit which the CBO says will start to rise again after the next FY.
How on Earth can the U.S. need more 'military credibility' when it is hip deep in debt and yet still spends way more then Russia and China combined on their militaries? What nonsense.
Just more Neo-con type talk...more money for military spending, more war planning, more U.S. expansion, more 'us vs. them' neuroticism.
America is an economic mess - with stubbornly high unemployment despite huge deficits, record low interest rates and the Fed dropping helicopters of money on America...and these people just want more and more money.
America needs to slash military spending, balance the budget, get off the Fed teat and concentrate on getting her economy strong again...not putting up posters of Reagan to masturbate to, spend like even drunker sailors then they already are and dream of the 'good ole' Cold War days.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
You are what your opinions are, aren't you? Since they're cynical, I have to assume you are too.
The thing is this, the first place Russia is going is to Iran now. They are going to try to mend the fences after they threw Iran under the bus and left them at the mercy of the US. The US needs to go in, make an attractive offer to Iran, and let them know that they would be better off by siding with the US. The US should make it clear that if only Iran does not pursue the development of nuclear weapons, and refrains from attacking US interests, that the US has no reason to regard Iran as an enemy and would rather have friendly relations with them. The US could use the energy, Iran could use the money and US technical assistance. It's a win win for both sides. Then perhaps, after that fence has been mended the US could work towards the goal of persuading Iran to use it's considerable influence with Syria to convince them to get rid of the Russian base in Syria. This would be a very big setback for Russia as their ability to project power into the Middle East, and also into the Mediterranean and therefore Europe, would be extremely eroded.
Therefore the US needs to go through Iran to effectively get to Russia.
1) Annual appropriations
2) Supplemental appropriations that have been adopted to fund war efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and provide for other special needs.
The large cuts I cited are cuts in the annual appropriations. Annual appropriations came to nearly $600 billion in FY2013. I favor reduced cuts in that spending.
Supplemental appropriations can and should be reduced as the war efforts and related activities are wound down in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
I'm not advocating anything like that. In fact, I repeatedly opposed U.S. military intervention in Syria and Libya, as no meaningful U.S. interests were involved.
My focus is not expanding U.S. military guarantees to non-NATO members and I don't support expansion of NATO. Instead, I believe there should be greater security cooperation and integration among existing NATO members. Moreover, I'm suggesting that it would be better for U.S. military strength to be maintained near current levels rathern than slashed to pre-WW II levels in some areas. I am not calling for any kind of new arms race, though I believe the ongoing managed retreat from space-related R&D is short-sighted.
Finally, I favor medium-term fiscal consolidation. That effort cannot fall mainly or wholly on the Defense budget. Mandatory spending programs will need to be reformed to become fiscally sustainable. Some degree of tax hikes will likely also be needed to bridge financing gaps.