First, sorry it took so long to answer back....4 days straight on the road, 2500 miles...no time....
I have to hand it to you, and anyone else that can drive a big truck all day. It has to be difficult, and require a cool head when you deal with the highway idiots that infest the nation's roads. At least you can curse at them and call them names, and they can't hear you.
But, no one is saying that we should go back to any former strategies, unless they are part of a larger plan to lead...Such as projecting strength, and placing the onus of governing, and rebuilding up to those liberated. That IMHO, is where we made our mistake....To think that a people half way around the world, with different values, and cultures are going to turn into some Jeffersonian republic was a foolish endeavor, and many of us that supported the Iraq invasion now see that.
Exactly.
I saw that when Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were spewing their nonsense and talking Bush into invading. My prediction was that it would turn out a lot like Vietnam, and that the failure would be blamed on "liberals," which is exactly what happened. History repeated itself, as it does.
And it is a foolish argument...For instance, You lay out for me why you think we have the highest military budget in the world? I know why I think we have to, but I would be interested in hearing your reasons for why the US should scale back it's spending on military at this time, and what you think would be the result of that, as well as who you think would fill the void left in certain area's?
I'm not sure we need to scale back our military in any significant way, but neither should we go hand wringing about how the military has been "gutted," and needs a massive infusion of cash. Throwing money at a problem is seldom the path to a solution. I'm also not sure just how much longer we can continue to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military when we have a nearly 20 trillion debt.
Like a lot of government spending, military spending is wasted.
:lol: Well, isn't that wonderful that you have that out?
I would just love it if we didn't have to be involved in the world's conflicts unless we were attacked like in WWII....But, knowing that you are a level headed guy, with a firm grasp of history, you'll also know that there were forces in the US during that time that didn't want us involved in that war either. Times change, and our responsibilities change also....Maybe if the US wasn't the "go to" everytime the UN or some tin pot country gets itself in trouble that could be an option, but again, tell me who would fill the void left by a more isolationist America?
Tell that to the UN who comes cryin to us every time they need troops or money.
One of the few issues on which I agree with the current POTUS: The rest of the members of the UN need to step up. The US can't continue to play the role of world cop.
When we're no longer able to fill that role, who will fill the void? That's a good question. Super powers come and go. I'd bet on China being the next one, but who knows?
Democrats are reckless with our military...To think that some in the democrat party think it prudent to talk about "acts of war" in association with their loss of the previous election is proof of that.
Well, it was t he Democratic party that was in power when the foolish decision to send in half a million troops in response to the Gulf of Tonkein non incident was made, so you just may have a point there, but then, I'm not sure you can support the idea that the Republicans are any better.
And, no one is talking about war with Russia. The "acts of war" rhetoric is just that, political rhetoric, overheated, overblown, foolish, and devoid of meaning, just like most political rhetoric.
