• 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’

There is no reason not to cut around $300 billion a year from 'Defense' budgets, and all the off-budget and 'discretionary' spending it eats up as well. It would cost Republicans a lot of their union votes at 'Defense' plants, as well as those Democrats who vote for the cuts and have plants in their districts, so it won't happen, except of course when the Republicans finally bankrupt the country and there is nothing left to steal, so enjoy the ride down. One of the last acts of the U.S. government will be turning the military loose on it's own citizens, just like Syria and all the other 'Arab Spring' nonsense is bringing about.
 
If you can't win an argument, change the subject eh?

I am no supporter of the Obama/GOP offensive military policy. I support the liberal/Libertarian position on defense. Don't you "claim" to be a Libertarian?

I believe we should end all three wars yesterday. I believe that the ultimate liberty is life and if a leader somewhere is taking the life of his subordinates, he should be killed. End of that story.

That happened long ago with Saddam.
 
I believe we should end all three wars yesterday. I believe that the ultimate liberty is life and if a leader somewhere is taking the life of his subordinates, he should be killed. End of that story.

That happened long ago with Saddam.

You mean back when Reagan had Iraq removed from the terrorist nations listing? Back when Saddam was at his most murderous and we were his allies? Back when US companies supplied him with the precursor needed to make the outlawed mustard gas that he used on his own people?

Certainly would have made sense then. But that was before Iraq nationalized their oil and kicked big oil out of Iraq, so their wasn't any need for us to stop being allies of Saddam then.

I agree with the Libertarians on Defense only policy. We cannot afford this nation building ****! Either financially, or morally.
 
If you can't win an argument, change the subject eh?

I am no supporter of the Obama/GOP offensive military policy. I support the liberal/Libertarian position on defense. Don't you "claim" to be a Libertarian?

History has proven that the best defense, is to attack. A defensive grand strategy has never worked.
 
What part of the fact that production hasn't been greater than our consumption for the last 40 years, did you not understand.

i would imagine it would be the part where our production was artificially constrained?

You would be happy if we used all the world's oil? Did I understand you correctly?

he was responding that he does not give a hoot what % of the worlds' production we use.
 
My friend we wouldn't be in the wars we are in now if we had not invaded foreign lands. It's amazing how much peace you can have as a nation when you leave other people the **** alone. No empire, fewer wars.

Tell me exactly what country we were invading on Sept, 11 2001?
 
Then explain how you justify the US going to war against a country that was of no threat to us?

Well...you see there are these guys...they call them rebels, but no one really knows who they are affiliated with and how...and they are trying to overthrow the president of their country...and then the president of their country fired back,,,and OUR president says it is not something we as a nation can sit back and watch...and that we MUST intervene-its our national character. Except...not in Syria...where...you know...tons MORE people are dying.
 
Well...you see there are these guys...they call them rebels, but no one really knows who they are affiliated with and how...and they are trying to overthrow the president of their country...and then the president of their country fired back,,,and OUR president says it is not something we as a nation can sit back and watch...and that we MUST intervene-its our national character. Except...not in Syria...where...you know...tons MORE people are dying.

Which is what my post in this thread is all about:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rest-deadly-military-attack-latakia-port.html
 
Then explain how you justify the US going to war against a country that was of no threat to us?

You must be mad as hell about the war in Libya.
 
Well, the fact is the U.S. wasn't invading any country on Sept. 11, 2001.

We already had plans and measures in place to invade Iraq - Sep 11 just happened to be a convenient means of gaining national support for what would have otherwise been unsupported - or even uneventful.
 
History has proven that the best defense, is to attack. A defensive grand strategy has never worked.

Like the Maginot Line when the Germans just went around it?
 
We already had plans and measures in place to invade Iraq - Sep 11 just happened to be a convenient means of gaining national support for what would have otherwise been unsupported - or even uneventful.

But, we hadn't invaded, right?

Hell, we have a plan to invade Canada and Mexico, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it.
 
Like the Maginot Line when the Germans just went around it?

Exacta-mundo!

And the defensive strategy used by Poland, Denmark and Norway.

If the nations of Europe would have sunk more money into offensive capabilities, WW2 might have only lasted a few months.
 
We already had plans and measures in place to invade Iraq - Sep 11 just happened to be a convenient means of gaining national support for what would have otherwise been unsupported - or even uneventful.
Of course we had plans. We have lots and lots of plans. For everything.

Would you want to pay for a military that did not plan? History shows that every nation had plans to cover a wide variety of contingencies. Some had plans for defense. Some for offense.

Or are you one of the people who believe we should wait until an enemy hands us our head and then start to figure out out what we can do about it? I prefer to plan and adjust.
 
Exacta-mundo!

And the defensive strategy used by Poland, Denmark and Norway.

If the nations of Europe would have sunk more money into offensive capabilities, WW2 might have only lasted a few months.

But then we never would have had the mini-series Band of Brothers.
 
History has proven that the best defense, is to attack. A defensive grand strategy has never worked.

On that you and the Nazi's agree.
 
i would imagine it would be the part where our production was artificially constrained?

Under both parties rule for 40 years? Where is your proof of this idiotic claim?
 
But, we hadn't invaded, right?

Hell, we have a plan to invade Canada and Mexico, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it.

Of course we had plans. We have lots and lots of plans. For everything.

Would you want to pay for a military that did not plan? History shows that every nation had plans to cover a wide variety of contingencies. Some had plans for defense. Some for offense.

Or are you one of the people who believe we should wait until an enemy hands us our head and then start to figure out out what we can do about it? I prefer to plan and adjust.

Necessary steps to deploy troops per the original plan had already been seen to - I think it would have happened one way or another. You two can believe otherwise if you like.
 
Republican Now Opposes War in Iraq

"Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a respected Republican voice on intelligence issues who is retiring from Congress, is telling his constituents that he now considers the war in Iraq a mistake despite his earlier support for the invasion.

In a four-page letter being distributed to constituents who call or write about the war, Mr. Bereuter said that initiating the pre-emptive military strike was not justified because of what he described as a massive intelligence failure.

''I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition,'' he wrote.

Mr. Bereuter, who announced earlier this year that he was leaving Congress as of Aug. 31 after 26 years in the House, is the vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and had been at times mentioned as a potential chairman. He is also a senior member of the International Relations Committee."
Republican Now Opposes War in Iraq - NYTimes.com
 
Republican Now Opposes War in Iraq
"Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, a respected Republican voice on intelligence issues who is retiring from Congress, is telling his constituents that he now considers the war in Iraq a mistake despite his earlier support for the invasion.
Now that is courage. Is he getting ready to take a gig at one of the state run media outlets?
 
On that you and the Nazi's agree.

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?
 
Necessary steps to deploy troops per the original plan had already been seen to - I think it would have happened one way or another. You two can believe otherwise if you like.

Even if Al had won?
 
Back
Top Bottom