Will the Tea Party join the War Party? (Glenn Beck, suspect, radical)

[BentBow]

The best defense is a very powerful and aggressive offense.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by BentBow

The best defense is a very powerful and aggressive offense.

Rome thought the same thing, look how well that turned out. Russians thought the same thing, look how that turned out. Brits thought the same thing, look at their empire now. The Spanish in the 16th century, well you get the picture.

The people in the Pentagon had developed a phrase to describe this. They called it, "full spectrum dominance." Meaning, that the United States was going to exercise dominance, not just capability, dominance across the full spectrum of warfare. And this became the center of the way that the military advertised its capabilities in the 1990s. That was fraud. That was fraudulent.

To claim that the United States military could demonstrate that kind of dominance flew in the face of all of history and in many respects, set us up for how the Bush Administration was going to respond to 9/11. Because if you believed that United States military was utterly unstoppable, then it became kind of plausible to imagine that the appropriate response to 9/11 was to embark upon this global war to transform the greater Middle East. Had the generals been more cognoscente of the history of war, and of the nature of war, then they might have been in a better position to argue to Mr. Rumsfeld, then the Secretary of Defense, or to the President himself, "Be careful." "Don't plunge ahead." Recognize that force has utility, but that utility is actually quite limited. Recognize that when we go to war, almost inevitably, there are going to be unanticipated consequences. And they're not going to be happy ones.

Right now the United States military spends more money than the next 15 of the worlds largest and most powerful nations COMBINED, and yet it can't seem to root out a few backwater Taliban?

There is reality and then there is fantastic wishful thinking.

[OhioIstheBest]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Rome thought the same thing, look how well that turned out. Russians thought the same thing, look how that turned out. Brits thought the same thing, look at their empire now. The Spanish in the 16th century, well you get the picture.

This is why people should not vote for Democrats.

They got us involved in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, bombed Afghanistan and Iraq repeatedly and kept unecessary sanctions on Iraq. Now we have Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan and he has no intention of ever getting out of Iraq. We will have troops there for as long as possible.

If Clinton had not been lying to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for 8 years and lifted the sanctions then Bush could never have gained the political support to invade.

Interesting, George Bush the First reduced the size of the military.

So to answer your question: No, it is highly doubtful that The Tea Party people will join the democratic party.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest

This is why people should not vote for Democrats.

They got us involved in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, bombed Afghanistan and Iraq repeatedly and kept unecessary sanctions on Iraq. Now we have Obama expanding the war in Afghanistan and he has no intention of ever getting out of Iraq. We will have troops there for as long as possible.

If Clinton had not been lying to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for 8 years and lifted the sanctions then Bush could never have gained the political support to invade.

Interesting, George Bush the First reduced the size of the military.

So to answer your question: No, it is highly doubtful that The Tea Party people will join the democratic party.

I would more attribute Bush's belief that the greater Middle East could be pacified due to prior small scale successes. Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm were cases in which the US got in, got out, and had overwhelming military success. In part because of clearly defined goals. In the wake of Desert Storm, as already posted above, there was a belief in the Pentagon who began to use the term, "full spectrum dominance." It was believed that the US military was nearly invincible and could achieve militarily what politics could not in the region. This gave rise to the belief of "Cakewalk", which never materialized.

It is my belief that many of the self described Tea Party folks aren't as much concerned about fiscal responsibility as they are about getting the opposition out of power. Kind of like the anti-war left that put their signs away in the shed after Obama was elected, as for many it wasn't as much about being against the war as it was about being against Bush. Proof is in the lack of anti-war events to anyone wondering.

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Rome thought the same thing, look how well that turned out. Russians thought the same thing, look how that turned out. Brits thought the same thing, look at their empire now. The Spanish in the 16th century, well you get the picture.

And the isolationists and predecessors of modern day Buchananists and Paulists lobbied to stop any action to prevent Hitler from militarizing and conquering Europe. That cost the lives of many millions, including Americans.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

And the isolationists and predecessors of modern day Buchananists and Paulists lobbied to stop any action to prevent Hitler from militarizing and conquering Europe. That cost the lives of many millions, including Americans.

Chalk one up for the obvious war party.

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

Chalk one up for the obvious war party.

Personal attack again. Is that to what you resort when your argument falls short? Can't address the point I made? There's a pattern here.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

Personal attack again. Is that to what you resort when your argument falls short? Can't address the point I made? There's a pattern here.

You support further war and conflict, hence war party, oy vey!

You made no point relevant to the context of the topic, hence no point relevant to this discussion and thus you didn't receive a comment worthy of my consideration beyond the glib. The only pattern I see is your constant self reference to being a victim of personal attacks in response to your non sequitur statements.

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

And the isolationists and predecessors of modern day Buchananists and Paulists lobbied to stop any action to prevent Hitler from militarizing and conquering Europe. That cost the lives of many millions, including Americans.

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

You support further war and conflict, hence war party, oy vey!

You made no point relevant to the context of the topic, hence no point relevant to this discussion and thus you didn't receive a comment worthy of my consideration beyond the glib. The only pattern I see is your constant self reference to being a victim of personal attacks in response to your non sequitur statements.

"oy vey"???

I made a very relevant response to your position, which completely ignores the history of the isolationist "conservatives" in the years prior to the American entry into WW II. You have avoided addressing that topic in previous threads. Can't deal with it? Doesn't jive with what you're pushing?
Your Bundist, Buchananite policy is repudiated by that shameful piece of history.

[mohawkx]

Tea Party will never accept major cuts in military spending. They only support gutting "socialist" programs that benefit the old and disadvantaged of society. Cutting back military spending would be diametricly in opposition to the agenda of the Koch Bros. R. Murdoch, Dick Armey and his legion of lobbyists who actually control the Tea Party.