U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2010, 09:49 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow View Post
mo,
You just don't get it.
Actually it is you who doesn't get it.

Quote:
In this OP's view, there is no such thing as a necessary war.
Ok everyone, meet the straw man argument. This poster is arguing something of which I've never stated. Please, do show where I've stated or even made the assertion of "there is no such thing as a necessary war".

If you can't answer this one simple question, then don't bother moving to the next.

Quote:
It's a Paulist (as the OP would describe it) isolationist take on the US and its role in the world. Everything is "interventionist". America's joining with the allies in WWII was "interventionist".
This is what is known as a non-sequitur, or Latin for "does not follow" as well as another straw man. First it is assumed that I describe Ron Paul's views as isolationist, which I do not, but I suspect this poster does, hence our straw man. Secondly, the poster makes the assertion that I support isolationist views (which I don't) then associates this with WWII implying that I would not have agreed with the US engagement in WWII. This strange sequence of fantastical reasoning simple does not follow, thus non-sequitur or as one synonym suggest, "gibberish".

Quote:
Any response to this OP should be prefaced on an understanding of this position.
This is a rather humorous statement, this poster is telling others that their arguments should be framed according to their understanding or reasoning of my positions. If you like, I'll be more than happy to offer you my positions if you want them, or you can just let this poster tell you what you should think. Since clearly this poster has no clue as usual as to what my actual positions are, I would recommend simply asking me if you have doubts.

Now, since you seem to know more about what I am thinking than apparently even I do, I must ask, am I craving chocolate milk or ice cream, because I can't decide at the moment.

Now, do you wish to discuss the OP, the previous posters statement or my response to theirs? Or do you wish to just make up some fictional fantasy as you go?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2010, 10:43 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
37,632 posts, read 24,706,945 times
Reputation: 12000
"As I've pointed out many times before, the United States has a military apparatus that is as large as the next 15 of the worlds largest nations combined, so if we are spending this much, deploying this many pieces of armament and have this many personnel engaged and cannot even displace a relatively small number of Afghan insurgents, then do we double this number?"


The next 15 nations are their own problem. My concern is the young people who wear our uniform. If spending more money to equip, train and support our military members results in fewer US casualties the next time we fight a "necessary" war, then we have a moral obligation to do so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2010, 10:49 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"As I've pointed out many times before, the United States has a military apparatus that is as large as the next 15 of the worlds largest nations combined, so if we are spending this much, deploying this many pieces of armament and have this many personnel engaged and cannot even displace a relatively small number of Afghan insurgents, then do we double this number?"


The next 15 nations are their own problem. My concern is the young people who wear our uniform. If spending more money to equip, train and support our military members results in fewer US casualties the next time we fight a "necessary" war, then we have a moral obligation to do so.
Well if the US would pull out of Europe, Korea, and a few other choice locations, as well as scaling back on a few of the proposed 13 some odd billion dollar carriers and a few other programs like the unnecessary(according to Gates, the planes developer, and even members within the Pentagon) for the F-35 then perhaps we could not only equip every soldier with the necessary gear, we could color coordinate for each day of the week.

Do conservatives really argue in favor of defending Europe, those people they so seem to hate for being socialist, who have their own militarizes, space programs and OMG... nationalized health care? Is this what conservatives are arguing in favor of?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 02:08 AM
 
11,946 posts, read 14,223,900 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post

For me, this is an issue which will define how principled the Tea Party movement is, or whether it is just another bought and paid for rage campaign.



(permission to reprint extended excerpt granted if provided the following link)
[1]Pat Buchanan The American Conservative » Tea Party vs. War Party
To Pat Buchanan... military anything is moot if we don't have the greenbacks. The pie in the sky goals need to get in line with reality. That's not something that comes easy to Tea.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 08:32 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
To Pat Buchanan... military anything is moot if we don't have the greenbacks. The pie in the sky goals need to get in line with reality. That's not something that comes easy to Tea.
True, but that is somewhat the notion from many more paleoconservative and libertarian types like Rockwell. If you ever get the chance, I often tell folks that they would likely be pleasantly surprised by some of the writers over at TAC magazine and I'm sure some from the anti-war left have read Antiwar.com, who's writers like Justin Raimondo contribute fairly regularly at TAC. If nothing else, it at least comes across as a very sane and rational version of conservative in comparison to much of what is out there today.


On the point of "No bucks, no Buck Rogers", I agree with Pat on this. If the economy is in ruin, its hard to maintain a strong national defense, let alone so many forces abroad. I guess I just remember before the wall fell in Soviet Union and the people waited in bread lines as their leaders continued to buy bullets, and from some of the sentiments I get out of more tea party like folks, I think this is their desire.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 12:09 PM
 
19,225 posts, read 14,693,969 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
"As I've pointed out many times before, the United States has a military apparatus that is as large as the next 15 of the worlds largest nations combined, so if we are spending this much, deploying this many pieces of armament and have this many personnel engaged and cannot even displace a relatively small number of Afghan insurgents, then do we double this number?"


The next 15 nations are their own problem. My concern is the young people who wear our uniform. If spending more money to equip, train and support our military members results in fewer US casualties the next time we fight a "necessary" war, then we have a moral obligation to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTGbg1DZv0
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 12:29 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
ROFL! Good grief, hilarious. Yes, there is always this aspect and it is something that Andrew Bacevich has often spoke about. Buy the hat, the next step is to find a place to wear it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 01:00 PM
 
11,946 posts, read 14,223,900 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post

What is more is that Obama has slid right into George W Bush's shoes and its not because Obama thinks the same, but because those in the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of staff that surround and advise this President are many of the same ones who advised the former.
Recall Chenney's snide comments regarding Obama's president elect
'naive' plan to extricate from war loosely paraphrased-- he'll see soon enough. I can only deduce a devils bargain is afoot not to mention super sized napoleon egos. Interesting article that pieces more of the puzzle together when it's added to your newsweek article. Barack Obama and Afghanistan: Get me out of here | The Economist

I suggest you take into consider the opinions of modern whig party members. The party was created by active duty and vets of both wars who strongly disagree with politics as we know it today.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 01:20 PM
 
11,135 posts, read 13,701,258 times
Reputation: 3691
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
Recall Chenney's snide comments regarding Obama's president elect
'naive' plan to extricate from war loosely paraphrased-- he'll see soon enough. I can only deduce a devils bargain is afoot not to mention super sized napoleon egos. Interesting article that pieces more of the puzzle together when it's added to your newsweek article. Barack Obama and Afghanistan: Get me out of here | The Economist

I suggest you take into consider the opinions of modern whig party members. The party was created by active duty and vets of both wars who strongly disagree with politics as we know it today.
A very interesting piece and duly noted on the CIA's 30,000 man paki army. Thats news to me.

I often cite Andrew Bacevich's works in foreign policy discussions because there are few conservatives today that I know of who can encapsulate the greater argument as a whole, in regards to empire, open ended ill defined counter insurgency wars, etc... You may enjoy this thread, that for obvious reasons didn't get much attention due to the weight of content, but I suspect you would enjoy it, if you haven't yet seen it.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...gn-policy.html

The military establishment is probably the toughest cookie to crack and one that few Republicans refuse to even consider and even fewer Democrats wish to challenge for fear of being seen as weak.

As far as the Tea Party is concerned, I believe it has gotten to the point where the mob is tossing the rope over the tree limb and any calls to the mob to give a trial first are drown out. The truly fiscally conservatives within this movement are simply drown out in a sea of mouth breathers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2010, 01:31 PM
 
11,946 posts, read 14,223,900 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
When Clinton castrated our military, Reagan had built to be the most powerful in the world, it only stands to reason, your going to get punched in the face and not be able to punch back and get a knockout every time, to end it quick.
Baldfaced lie. Reagan was responsible for the inception of winding down the largess of military with BRAC (base closure realignment recommendations) & personnel cuts. Unfortunately he used that cut to run up a 40% increase for a pig in a poke starwars program living up to his 'peace through strength' jingle. His policy favored toys over 'liability' personnel. Please DO go on about how he stood by the troops. That plan spanned decades, it's ongoing, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO post cold war. Clinton did carry on those base cuts on his watch because he agreed it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. See what happens when fiscal conservative policy gets implemented? Let the whining begin!

Naturally you'll claim I'm lying as knee jerk defense of your own habit of bearing false witness at the behest of talking heads. That false accusation would include the entire DOD lying about itself right along with me. Defense.gov News Article: BRAC 2005: Base Closure, Realignment Recommendations Follow Lengthy Process
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top