• 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!

Eric Cantor floats year-end trigger bargain

quite as many? no. but we do have to maintain our presence world wide. global trade depends upon global security, and global security is held up by US forces. If we leave, others will not move to take up that role, but the world will rather break into mercantilist chunks as it spins into chaos. Our economy is utterly dependent on global trade, meaning that withdrawing our forward leaning defense posture (as these plans would likely require) is the financial equivalent of eating seed corn.

As long as they know that we are willing to protect our interests we do not need nearly as many boots all over the world that we have now.

no - the primary goal of the United States Military is mission accomplishment. sometimes that requires paying the piper. but if you are concerned about our lives, might I suggest you not support re-hollowing out the military so that we find ourselves in the future in another situation like Iraq 2004, when we had no armor for our vehicles or our bodies because of the previous decades' spending cuts. when you significantly reduce the US military, you make it more likely that they will have to be used, and you make it less likely that they will have the equipment necessary to do so with minimal loss of life. Take a look at that chart again and notice the drop in combat air support. the gap of that air support will be refilled with the bodies of the infantrymen who are now bereft.

We can make large cuts and not affect readiness one bit in my opinion. There is so much waste and overlapping programs but nobody is willing to address it because it's the "military" and it's how so many politicians buy their votes.

Take Haliburton. They were caught screwing the government many times over but we continued to hand out contracts to them. They should have been cut off long ago.
 
Compromise is in the air...lets hope so.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is quietly working both sides of the Capitol to build support for a plan to scale back automatic spending cuts and combine the proposal with a wide range of critical year-end tax and spending measures.

Cantor has spoken to senators from both parties — including a Thanksgiving morning phone call to the Stamford, Conn., home of Sen. Joe Lieberman — as he gauges support for a potential package that would include up to $133 billion in spending cuts in exchange for delaying the first year of slashes to defense and nondefense programs slated to begin in 2013. That package could also include a reform and a yearlong extension of jobless benefits, a payroll tax break and the Medicare reimbursement rate for physicians.

So in other words a politician who is a leader in the party that is against government spending it can't pay for is trying to form a compromise in which Democrats are able to pursue government deficit spending they want in order to ensure that the Republicans are able to pursue the government deficit spending they want rather than make the hard decisions regarding real reform of government spending and increases in tax revenue.
 
If you were all OLD and retired like me :p and were middle of the road and watched and read the news from both liberal moderate and conservative sources...you would find that more and more republicans are coming out and calling for compromise and working together.
The moderate GOP are feeling the stonewalling and hardlining is going to hurt them not help in re elections...and I agree...
I said earlier there is a tug of war going on in the GOP behind the scenes...and I predict the moderate traditional gop will win out in the end...

I agree to the importance of compromise, so I'm with you on that.

However, I think a better compromise would be selected government cuts with selected tax increases rather than continued government spending for both sides that cannot be paid for.
 
As long as they know that we are willing to protect our interests we do not need nearly as many boots all over the world that we have now.

being perceived as being willing to protect ones' interests is irrelevant unless we are perceived as being able to protect our interests. a threat is the willingness combined with the capability, and capability requires presence.

we could probably reduce our land forces in many areas (Europe comes to mind), but we need to expand our Naval Presence in others (South West and East Asia).

We can make large cuts and not affect readiness one bit in my opinion.

.... then your opinion is objectively inaccurate?

There is so much waste and overlapping programs but nobody is willing to address it because it's the "military" and it's how so many politicians buy their votes.

well, okay, where do you see a combined $1 Trillion in waste in the DOD? Because apparently it's eluded the DOD itself. They think that Sequestration means this:

Thiessen-Defense-Figure-4.jpg


Thiessen-Defense-Figure-3.jpg









hint: 143,000 soldiers, 57,000 Marines, 308 Naval ships, and a little over 3,000 combat aircraft is a lot of readiness.
 
Last edited:
being perceived as being willing to protect ones' interests is irrelevant unless we are perceived as being able to protect our interests. a threat is the willingness combined with the capability, and capability requires presence.

we could probably reduce our land forces in many areas (Europe comes to mind), but we need to expand our Naval Presence in others (South West and East Asia).

I see no reason for that as there is nothing there that we are going to do anything about.

.... then your opinion is objectively inaccurate?


well, okay, where do you see a combined $1 Trillion in waste in the DOD? Because apparently it's eluded the DOD itself.

I have no doubt that is true. Much like the thread where the economists being paid with education dollars believe that the best way out of our mess is with more education spending.
 
So in other words a politician who is a leader in the party that is against government spending it can't pay for is trying to form a compromise in which Democrats are able to pursue government deficit spending they want in order to ensure that the Republicans are able to pursue the government deficit spending they want rather than make the hard decisions regarding real reform of government spending and increases in tax revenue.

Uhhh yeah basically lol
 
I agree to the importance of compromise, so I'm with you on that.

However, I think a better compromise would be selected government cuts with selected tax increases rather than continued government spending for both sides that cannot be paid for.

I absolutely totally agree with you sam...that would be the perfect compromise, the problem is we will never get the GOP and dems to agree on what to cut...they will both have their druthers and nevers...its always been like that and always will....the difference today is we <the country> have never been this bad in debt or this much out of work ever...and their differences are more pronounced. Lets not forget you didnt have a far right teaparty faction in the house of representatives dictating that they want what they want and will settle for nothing less either...that has damaged the whole process greatly.
 
You can call me biased for being a veteran..but I believe any cuts to the Military need to be done AFTER you have cut many other depts and unnecessary spending first. Cutting Military spending to the bone while you still have troops deploying constantly and still in country in combat..is INSANE as far as im concerned
We could and should close all bases in germany, that exist soley to help the german economy. We can bring troops home from alot of places and close bases...Is it time for SKorea to start paying for us to assure their security from North Korea? I think so. Or let them spend some of the money they get from us buying their goods to develop their own military structure and defense. Those kind of cuts im for...but blanket across the board cuts to the military I believe should be secondary and further down the list with alot of other cuts ahead of them...my humble two cts.
 
I absolutely totally agree with you sam...that would be the perfect compromise, the problem is we will never get the GOP and dems to agree on what to cut...they will both have their druthers and nevers...its always been like that and always will....the difference today is we <the country> have never been this bad in debt or this much out of work ever...and their differences are more pronounced. Lets not forget you didnt have a far right teaparty faction in the house of representatives dictating that they want what they want and will settle for nothing less either...that has damaged the whole process greatly.

I think the American people are going to have to break the impasse by voting in a clear majority of one party or another in both houses of Congress.
 
I think the American people are going to have to break the impasse by voting in a clear majority of one party or another in both houses of Congress.

Seems they did that not long ago and really, did it do any good?
 
Seems they did that not long ago and really, did it do any good?

If your referring to the last congress with Nancy Pelosi at the helm the answer is no...they squandered their chance at greatness allowing Pelosi to be overbearing and sneaky...the american people for them most part loathed her...and obama care and the way it was passed was the finishing touch
 
Last edited:
I see no reason for that as there is nothing there that we are going to do anything about.

There is one reason Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are not all currently shooting at each other: forward deployed US military power
There is one reason China has not invaded Taiwan: forward deployed US military power
There is one reason why radical allied Wahhabi and NeoDeobandi elements have not successfully (yet) taken over the Pakistani government: forward deployed US military power
There is one reason why world trade flows relatively unimpeded: forward deployed US military power

we underpin and guarantee global security, most especially in the critical littoral regions. remove a beneficent hegemon player, and watch the world sink back into 19th-century mercantilist-bloc style Geopolitics. after a few wars that collapse the global economy and claim more lives than we frankly would like. Good luck reducing the deficit without a modern economy.

I have no doubt that is true. Much like the thread where the economists being paid with education dollars believe that the best way out of our mess is with more education spending.

:roll: i've given you the actual numbers. until you can demonstrate a plausible plan to achieve those savings without cutting those personnel and assets your "we can do it without reducing readiness" remains a fantasy.
 
I think the American people are going to have to break the impasse by voting in a clear majority of one party or another in both houses of Congress.

agreed. what we have now is the result of three swing elections, and isn't plausibly going to be able to produce movement.
 
There is one reason Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia are not all currently shooting at each other: forward deployed US military power

WRONG. Israel is behaving not because they are afraid we would attack them as we never would. It's because they are concerned that we would cut off their aid. Saudi Arabia behaves because they know a war would mean an end to the ruling party.

There is one reason China has not invaded Taiwan: forward deployed US military power

We are not about to attack China and China knows that.

There is one reason why radical allied Wahhabi and NeoDeobandi elements have not successfully (yet) taken over the Pakistani government: forward deployed US military power

They do not have the means to take over the government.

There is one reason why world trade flows relatively unimpeded: forward deployed US military power

It doesn't take much to send a few planes to address a blockade or something.

we underpin and guarantee global security, most especially in the critical littoral regions. remove a beneficent hegemon player, and watch the world sink back into 19th-century mercantilist-bloc style Geopolitics. after a few wars that collapse the global economy and claim more lives than we frankly would like. Good luck reducing the deficit without a modern economy.

I believe there are more than a few wars going on right now. Why are we in Afghanistan still?

:roll: i've given you the actual numbers. until you can demonstrate a plausible plan to achieve those savings without cutting those personnel and assets your "we can do it without reducing readiness" remains a fantasy.

I believe we should cut personnel.
 
I see your knowledge of history is quite short.

About what? The record number of filibusters required for bill passage by Congress, or the the record low opinion of Congress?
 
WRONG. Israel is behaving not because they are afraid we would attack them as we never would. It's because they are concerned that we would cut off their aid. Saudi Arabia behaves because they know a war would mean an end to the ruling party.

you are incorrect on both counts. 1. Saudi Arabia has no ruling party, it has an extended royal family and 2. it and Israel are both willing to take a less aggressive posture towards Iran because of the US security guarantee of the 5th Fleet, CENTCOM, and EUCOM assets in the region. Israel has a deeper strategic buffer because they are backstopped by US Forces. take away that backstop, and their only plausible defense becomes a good offense.

We are not about to attack China and China knows that.

actually no they don't - they are paranoid, nationalistic li'l bastards. but you deliberately did not answer the point, which is that the only reason China is not pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy in the Pacific (specifically, that they have not seized Taiwan) is because (again) of the US Presence in the region.

They do not have the means to take over the government.

they don't have to, they just have to effectively collapse the governments' de facto ability to exert control over large swaths of the nation. which, measured competitively with organic assets alone, they do. it is the guarantee that the US will not let that happen that keeps them from doing so, specifically, the fact that we directly support the Paki military when they try. which (again) we are only in a position to do due to our forward leaning posture.

It doesn't take much to send a few planes to address a blockade or something.

:doh world trade flows freely mostly because of the US Naval guarantee. and yes, it does take quite a lot. specifically, it generally takes task forces and carrier groups, which in turn require land bases. you don't work the pirate problem without a forward leaning posture in Djibouti. you don't pose a realistic deterrent to Iran without the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. You don't pose a deterrent to China without the 7th Fleet willing to come to Taiwan's aid, and we havent' even talked about India yet.

I believe there are more than a few wars going on right now.

:lol: no, there are a few low level conflicts going on right now, as there usually are. we're talking of the shuts-down-the-international-oil-trade variety.

Why are we in Afghanistan still?

because the last thing we need is another force for instability in that region. and bluntly, we broke it - you break it you buy it.

I believe we should cut personnel.

then you are reducing readiness, drawing down our forward leaning defense posture, and increasing global insecurity and you should at least be willing to admit that. the result will be sharply reduced global trade, as trade requires a basic minimum of security and enforcement of contracts to succeed.
 
Last edited:
you are incorrect on both counts. 1. Saudi Arabia has no ruling party, it has an extended royal family and 2. it and Israel are both willing to take a less aggressive posture towards Iran because of the US security guarantee of the 5th Fleet, CENTCOM, and EUCOM assets in the region. Israel has a deeper strategic buffer because they are backstopped by US Forces. take away that backstop, and their only plausible defense becomes a good offense.

You claim I'm wrong but you don't dispute my contention that war would be very, very bad for the ruling party (family) in S.A. Israel is just itching to take on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. They are not afraid to defend themselves. If it wasn't for our money they would be taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure just like they did with Iraq.

actually no they don't - they are paranoid, nationalistic li'l bastards. but you deliberately did not answer the point, which is that the only reason China is not pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy in the Pacific (specifically, that they have not seized Taiwan) is because (again) of the US Presence in the region.

They have nothing to gain by taking on Taiwan. Yes, they wish they could just throw their weight around but now they have far too much at stake economically. Granted that may change as more and more allow China to own their debt but we would rather build more battleships than get our debt under control.

they don't have to, they just have to effectively collapse the governments' de facto ability to exert control over large swaths of the nation. which, measured competitively with organic assets alone, they do. it is the guarantee that the US will not let that happen that keeps them from doing so, specifically, the fact that we directly support the Paki military when they try. which (again) we are only in a position to do due to our forward leaning posture.

If they could, they would be.

:doh world trade flows freely mostly because of the US Naval guarantee. and yes, it does take quite a lot. specifically, it generally takes task forces and carrier groups, which in turn require land bases. you don't work the pirate problem without a forward leaning posture in Djibouti. you don't pose a realistic deterrent to Iran without the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. You don't pose a deterrent to China without the 7th Fleet willing to come to Taiwan's aid, and we havent' even talked about India yet.

Nobody has anything to gain here. There is nobody itching to block the trade routes. Iran even threatens it all the time but they know that if they were to do that just like in S.A. they know it would lead to an internal revolt. It would be no different than if either party in the U.S. decided to take on Israel.

:lol: no, there are a few low level conflicts going on right now, as there usually are. we're talking of the shuts-down-the-international-oil-trade variety.

Nobody is willing to cut off their livelyhoods.

because the last thing we need is another force for instability in that region. and bluntly, we broke it - you break it you buy it.

The Taliban wasn't bothering anyone outside of Afghanistan. 10 years later and the area is every bit if not more unstable.

then you are reducing readiness, drawing down our forward leaning defense posture, and increasing global insecurity and you should at least be willing to admit that. the result will be sharply reduced global trade, as trade requires a basic minimum of security and enforcement of contracts to succeed.

Countries do not wish to remain fiscally valid because we have a strong army.
 
You claim I'm wrong but you don't dispute my contention that war would be very, very bad for the ruling party (family) in S.A. Israel is just itching to take on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. They are not afraid to defend themselves. If it wasn't for our money they would be taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure just like they did with Iraq.

Saudi Arabia wouldn't consider that it had a choice in the matter. Previously, they've been able to depend upon a US shield, and so they haven't had to engage Iran for leadership of the ME. The Saudi's have made it abundantly clear that in the event of Iran developing a nuclear program, they will start to do so as well, kicking off a nuclear arms race in the region between shia and sunni. Withdrawal of US Forces would create a massive power vacuum in the region, and both would race to fill it. Ditto once we stopped supporting the military government in Pakistan.



They have nothing to gain by taking on Taiwan.

you need to stop right there. because the thing that the CCP has to gain by taking Taiwan is survival.

this is the problem with libertarians - they tend to assume that around the world everyone shares their value set; that people will not willingly give up nationalism, pride, realpolitik, power and so forth for money. The Chinese government (and, more importantly, her people) consider the continued existence of an independent Taiwan to be a consant humiliation forced upon them by the Imperialist West. It is a sore, a wound that does not staunch, a fester in the mind. They look at Taiwan similarly to how Arabs look at Israel. What we would consider to be a rational balancing of interests does not come into play.

The #1 goal for China is not wealth. Wealth is just a means to an end. The primary Goal for the PRC is regional hegemony. The primary goal of the CCP, however, is to maintain domestic power. Its' ruling legitimacy is founded upon two things: economic growth, and nationalism. economic growth is sitting on a bubble, which constrained US consumer spending will probably pop. In response, the CCP will have no option but to clamp down domestically and seek to clamp down abroad. They will need to rely near solely on Nationalism, and taking Taiwan would be the greatest possible victory for Chinese Nationalism that they could enact.

Yes, they wish they could just throw their weight around but now they have far too much at stake economically. Granted that may change as more and more allow China to own their debt but we would rather build more battleships than get our debt under control.

if we could ever balance our budgets, that debt becomes a weapon for us. as long as we do not, however, that sword is pointed at our throats, and the Chinese can nick us or shove it in at any time they wish.

and it turns out we would not rather build battleships. instead we are going to protect social spending and give up on building battleships (that is, after all, the point of this thread). Unfortunately, no one in our higher levels of government seems able to understand or willing to articulate that since global trade depends on a modicum of global security, and since that global security is provided for by the US military, trying to "reduce the deficit" by dramatically slashing military spending is the equivalent of eating seed corn.

If they could, they would be.

and they can't. because we are there.

you can't score geopolitics statically any more accurately than you can score fiscal policy statically. when the US draws down, the rules and weights on the board changes, and everyone else shifts to maximize upon that.

Nobody has anything to gain here. There is nobody itching to block the trade routes.

indeed. there are no somali pirates, wahhabi terrorists, or twelfth imam extremists in the region. everyone loves America and the invasion of Western Culture into their lands via the oil trade. No one would ever see trade with the West to be a degradation and a cancer within the Ummah and Islam.

Also, it's worth noting that China does not buy oil, has not been buying oil in exponentially increasing amounts, does not have a million Chinese extracting oil in East Africa, and does not believe in a mercantilist economic system in which raw resources are shunted from client states to China.

It's also worth noting that throughout human history and across the world, whenever nations have gone to war with each other (as is exceedingly likely to occur following US drawdown), there has never ever ever been a disruption of trade as a result of that war. nope never ever.

:)



wait.......



aw man...... :(


Nobody is willing to cut off their livelyhoods.

see earlier piece on how it's interesting that you think their highest priority is more wealth for their individual citizens.

The Taliban wasn't bothering anyone outside of Afghanistan. 10 years later and the area is every bit if not more unstable.

not true - the Taliban served as a launching point for AQ. and 10 years later the region has the possibility to become more stable. if we are allowed to finish the job. otherwise, yes, half-efforts are often worse than no efforts at all.

Countries do not wish to remain fiscally valid because we have a strong army.

that doesn't make sense. right now the rest of the world engages in relatively free global trade because the US underwrites it. we do this because A) we believe in it and B) our economy is dependent upon it, and we make alot of money off of it.

remove the underwriting, and free global trade collapses. the world has not entered into Kant's paradise, it remains a self-centered ugly place full of brutal autocracies who would much rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.




Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.

that's the Middle East after US withdrawal.
 
Last edited:
Saudi Arabia wouldn't consider that it had a choice in the matter. Previously, they've been able to depend upon a US shield, and so they haven't had to engage Iran for leadership of the ME. The Saudi's have made it abundantly clear that in the event of Iran developing a nuclear program, they will start to do so as well, kicking off a nuclear arms race in the region between shia and sunni. Withdrawal of US Forces would create a massive power vacuum in the region, and both would race to fill it. Ditto once we stopped supporting the military government in Pakistan.

If S.A. gets into a war, the oil money gets cut off and the royal family loses their power. They can not go to war.

you need to stop right there. because the thing that the CCP has to gain by taking Taiwan is survival.

this is the problem with libertarians - they tend to assume that around the world everyone shares their value set; that people will not willingly give up nationalism, pride, realpolitik, power and so forth for money. The Chinese government (and, more importantly, her people) consider the continued existence of an independent Taiwan to be a consant humiliation forced upon them by the Imperialist West. It is a sore, a wound that does not staunch, a fester in the mind. They look at Taiwan similarly to how Arabs look at Israel. What we would consider to be a rational balancing of interests does not come into play.

All of that is true but China knows they can no longer remain a backwards country and what they lose by invading Taiwan is far more than they gain. Invade they save face but take a huge hit with the rest, well, with much of the rest of the world.

The #1 goal for China is not wealth. Wealth is just a means to an end. The primary Goal for the PRC is regional hegemony. The primary goal of the CCP, however, is to maintain domestic power. Its' ruling legitimacy is founded upon two things: economic growth, and nationalism. economic growth is sitting on a bubble, which constrained US consumer spending will probably pop. In response, the CCP will have no option but to clamp down domestically and seek to clamp down abroad. They will need to rely near solely on Nationalism, and taking Taiwan would be the greatest possible victory for Chinese Nationalism that they could enact.

They aren't going to be able to go backwards.

if we could ever balance our budgets, that debt becomes a weapon for us. as long as we do not, however, that sword is pointed at our throats, and the Chinese can nick us or shove it in at any time they wish.

and it turns out we would not rather build battleships. instead we are going to protect social spending and give up on building battleships (that is, after all, the point of this thread). Unfortunately, no one in our higher levels of government seems able to understand or willing to articulate that since global trade depends on a modicum of global security, and since that global security is provided for by the US military, trying to "reduce the deficit" by dramatically slashing military spending is the equivalent of eating seed corn.

Perhaps we will but my position is across the board cuts.

and they can't. because we are there.

you can't score geopolitics statically any more accurately than you can score fiscal policy statically. when the US draws down, the rules and weights on the board changes, and everyone else shifts to maximize upon that.

We do not have to "be there" to be there.

indeed. there are no somali pirates, wahhabi terrorists, or twelfth imam extremists in the region. everyone loves America and the invasion of Western Culture into their lands via the oil trade. No one would ever see trade with the West to be a degradation and a cancer within the Ummah and Islam.

Also, it's worth noting that China does not buy oil, has not been buying oil in exponentially increasing amounts, does not have a million Chinese extracting oil in East Africa, and does not believe in a mercantilist economic system in which raw resources are shunted from client states to China.

It's also worth noting that throughout human history and across the world, whenever nations have gone to war with each other (as is exceedingly likely to occur following US drawdown), there has never ever ever been a disruption of trade as a result of that war. nope never ever.

Pirates? We have to be 15 trillion in debt because of pirates?

BEIJING: China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011, keeping volumes steady at some 460,000 barrels per day (bpd), two sources told Reuters.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

see earlier piece on how it's interesting that you think their highest priority is more wealth for their individual citizens.

They may not BUT the people of China have seen how much better it is and aren't going back.

not true - the Taliban served as a launching point for AQ. and 10 years later the region has the possibility to become more stable. if we are allowed to finish the job. otherwise, yes, half-efforts are often worse than no efforts at all.

A launching point in the same way that Dallas was a launching point for presidential assassations. We have been fighting Afghanistan for 10 years while the head of Al Queda has been in Pakistan.

that doesn't make sense. right now the rest of the world engages in relatively free global trade because the US underwrites it. we do this because A) we believe in it and B) our economy is dependent upon it, and we make alot of money off of it.

remove the underwriting, and free global trade collapses. the world has not entered into Kant's paradise, it remains a self-centered ugly place full of brutal autocracies who would much rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

We do not have to have boots all over the world to let it be known that we will protect our interests.
 
If S.A. gets into a war, the oil money gets cut off and the royal family loses their power. They can not go to war.

i would recommend you read up on the Yemeni Civil War, and the Oil Embargo of the 70's. SA has already survive both these things. what she can't survive is Iranian hegemony.

All of that is true but China knows they can no longer remain a backwards country and what they lose by invading Taiwan is far more than they gain.

like what? the US Consumer is gone, Europe is far gone, and they will own or control significant chunks of the worlds' natural resources thanks to the US short-sighted "withdraw to save money" foreign policy. they will have the Heartland and the Inner ring.

Invade they save face but take a huge hit with the rest, well, with much of the rest of the world.

yes. just like they did in 1989 with Tiannamen. and you know what? when it comes down to A) provide a massive burst to national pride through some major coup overturning a historical injustice and humiliation or B) lose their power and probably be executed en masse by whatever new government arises... they will do it again.

Again. China's #1 goal is not wealth. it is regional hegemony. If you think that they are unwilling to be unpopular with decrepit weaklings in order to save face, restore Chinese pride from the Century of Humiliation, restore the natural boundaries of Chinese power, and demonstrate their existence as an un-vetoable world power, I fear your understanding of Chinese culture is severely lacking.

They aren't going to be able to go backwards.

that is correct. where you are failing is that you do not see that they will see seizing Taiwan even at economic cost to be a great step forwards.

Perhaps we will but my position is across the board cuts.

then your position is deliberately obtuse. We need to cut firstly our land forces in Europe, secondly, the elderly portion of our nuclear strike force, thirdly perhaps some of our Air Force F-22's, at minimum hold secure our Naval forces, and beef up our Space, anti-missile, and Cyber capabilities. cutting our most important forces in tandem with our least important forces is asking to cut foolishly.

We do not have to "be there" to be there.

I'm going to have to ask you to explain this. are you suggesting that we will maintain a rapid deployment capability without foreign bases? that we will be able to secure the worlds' sea ways from threats with nonexistent ships?

Pirates? We have to be 15 trillion in debt because of pirates?

DOD Spending as a % of GDP is at historical post-war lows. we are 15 Trillion in debt thanks to social programs, a fiscal collapse, and ill-conceived "stimulus" spending.

[BEIJING: China, the world’s largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011, keeping volumes steady at some 460,000 barrels per day (bpd), two sources told Reuters.

that is correct. and Chinese demand is increasing exponentially. gosh. looks like Iran wouldn't suffer that much if she was suddenly no longer able to sell the West the oil she wasn't selling them anyway due to straits being shut down, huh?

They may not BUT the people of China have seen how much better it is and aren't going back.

1. the Chinese people are not in charge
2. the Chinese people would love to see the Chinese government retake Taiwan
3. Hence, once the Chinese economic situation has already faltered in the wake of a massive property bubble and a deleveraging US consumer, if the CCP does not want the Chinese people to become in charge, they will move to aggressively improve China's regional geopolitical standing.

A launching point in the same way that Dallas was a launching point for presidential assassations.

not at all. Al Qaeda literally married into the Taliban, and got active support for them.

We have been fighting Afghanistan for 10 years while the head of Al Queda has been in Pakistan.

yup. Afghanistan has become the base through which we are trying to help project stability into Pakistan. We withdraw from Afghanistan (as it looks like we might), and the Pakistani government is the big loser. which I would be all in favor of.... if they didn't have nukes.

We do not have to have boots all over the world to let it be known that we will protect our interests.

no, only in the volatile and critical regions. which is mostly where we are at. and those boots can often be on ship. but ships require friendly ports, and fleets require home ports and that requires foreign bases.
 
Compromise is in the air...lets hope so.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is quietly working both sides of the Capitol to build support for a plan to scale back automatic spending cuts and combine the proposal with a wide range of critical year-end tax and spending measures.

Cantor has spoken to senators from both parties — including a Thanksgiving morning phone call to the Stamford, Conn., home of Sen. Joe Lieberman — as he gauges support for a potential package that would include up to $133 billion in spending cuts in exchange for delaying the first year of slashes to defense and nondefense programs slated to begin in 2013. That package could also include a reform and a yearlong extension of jobless benefits, a payroll tax break and the Medicare reimbursement rate for physicians.
I had a feeling they would pull some **** like this. Hopefully this and any future attempts to weasel out of the cuts will fail miserably.
 
i would recommend you read up on the Yemeni Civil War, and the Oil Embargo of the 70's. SA has already survive both these things. what she can't survive is Iranian hegemony.

We aren't going to agree. Even IF all you say is true we can not afford to protect them all. If China wishes to invade Taiwan, there really isn't much we can do. As far as military cuts, I do not care specifically where they come from but cuts have to include the military.
 
We aren't going to agree. Even IF all you say is true we can not afford to protect them all. If China wishes to invade Taiwan, there really isn't much we can do. As far as military cuts, I do not care specifically where they come from but cuts have to include the military.

That is correct, at current, if China wishes to invade Taiwan, we can either choose to watch a trading partner get invaded, or watch them start a fire-sale on US Treasuries and crash the dollar. However, as long as there is a possibility that we will decide to take the hit to the Treasury and intervene with carrier groups, they probably/possibly won't. And we absolutely can afford to maintain our current forward deployed nature, and I think even beef up a bit on the Navy side.

Politically, cuts do have to include the military. I think switching members from a pension to a 401(k) style match, and offering us the opportunity of HSA's (as Indiana does) as opposed to standard Tricare would be excellent places to start, along with some drawdowns in Europe.

But the cuts that we are talking about with sequestration - according to President Obama's OWN Secretary of Defense - ruin our ability to ensure security for global trade.

Defense is one of the few legitimate reasons for our national government. If we are going to dramatically reduce expenditures on something, perhaps we should start with the items that aren't.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom