Will the Tea Party join the War Party? (Representatives, interview, wage)
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.
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.
I'm not sure if you have difficulty with reading comprehension or that I didn't state the original premise of the topic clearly enough.
"Will the Tea Party join the War Party"
First you create the straw man "isolationist", which you then associate with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, which you then claim is my "shameful piece of history", (even though were talking about today) to which you then assert that pre-WWII context for war is the same as todays context for war. You might consider addressing the premise of the topic or one of the posts within the topic discussion instead of making a statement as you did.
I don't play your straw man game and I have a rather long list of your postings of this type of behavior as evidence to remind myself. I've learned from prior dealings that any disagreement with you results in cries of "personal attack", so why bother.
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.
Well I very well may be wrong, but I suspect that there are those in the Tea Party who aren't a part of the Koch Bros. Murdoch and Armey brand. I would point to the Campaign for Liberty in which Ron Paul started post 08 election in which many anti-war conservatives and libertarians adjoined with. How many remains to be seen though, and to be honest, I'm not holding my breath expecting a large turn out.
Well I very well may be wrong, but I suspect that there are those in the Tea Party who aren't a part of the Koch Bros. Murdoch and Armey brand. I would point to the Campaign for Liberty in which Ron Paul started post 08 election in which many anti-war conservatives and libertarians adjoined with. How many remains to be seen though, and to be honest, I'm not holding my breath expecting a large turn out.
You're right of course. The original tea party sprang from the roots of Ron Paul and the libertarian ideology. From my perspective it appears the movement has been co-opted by the above mentioned players with their PACs and 517r financing. I would find common ground with the Tea Party if they dovetailed entitlement reform with substantial cuts in military spending. As you stated earlier, we do not need empire expansion. The whole concept of current national defense policy needs to be rethought, IMO.
You're right of course. The original tea party sprang from the roots of Ron Paul and the libertarian ideology. From my perspective it appears the movement has been co-opted by the above mentioned players and their PACs and 517r financing. I would find common ground with the Tea Party if they dovetailed entitlement reform with substantial cuts in military spending. As you stated earlier, we do not need empire expansion. The whole concept of current national defense policy needs to be rethought, IMO.
I remember back during the late Republican primaries when the establishment GOP was crucifying Paul, while at the same time taking notice that his own rally had more than 10,000 people which was on par with the entire crowd at the RNC rally. People took notice of how his campaign worked, what buzzwords to use, use of the internet, etc... They may have all but denounced him but in the end they ended up trying to emulate him with a bit of spin.
I think a lot of people on the right view touching the sacred cow of defense spending as blaspheme, yet Robert Gates has had some really excellent ideas on how to cut military spending while trying to better tune the military to the most needed tasks of the day. One program is the use of Predator drones and robotic "warriors" in place of putting people and high cost equipment in harms way. Whether one agrees with this or not, it is to me the first step in modernizing our military beyond just equipment but more importantly in strategy, tactics and use of tools.
Personally I think this issue will cut the traditional conservatives from the neoconservatives, because its hard to call yourself a fiscal conservative and not at least take a serious hard look at military spending.
First you create the straw man "isolationist", which you then associate with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, which you then claim is my "shameful piece of history", (even though were talking about today) to which you then assert that pre-WWII context for war is the same as todays context for war. You might consider addressing the premise of the topic or one of the posts within the topic discussion instead of making a statement as you did.
"even though were talking about today) to which you then assert that pre-WWII context for war is the same as todays context for war. "
Oh, so now we are we talking about today??? You bring up the Romans, the British Empire, the 16th century Spanish and now suddenly history is irrelevant!
That is, of course, only when it gets in the way of what you're pushing.
Many Americans, including the President at the time, wanted to join the resistance to the Nazi conquest of Europe early in the war. What would your position have been? Were these Americans the "war party"???
My guess is that you would have been at the forefront of the Bundists. But who knows, maybe you'll pleasantly surprise me (although I highly doubt it). In fact, answering the question at all will pleasantly surprise me.
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.
Pft!
I'm staring at China!
Would you as a nation, any nation jack with them right now?
We don't have to be the worlds nanny, to have a big military.
We need a big military, so we don't have to be a nanny and get involved.
This Progressive idea we have to be the worlds police was brought on after WW-I
That is our problem.
Would you as a nation, any nation jack with them right now?
We don't have to be the worlds nanny, to have a big military.
We need a big military, so we don't have to be a nanny and get involved.
This Progressive idea we have to be the worlds police was brought on after WW-I
That is our problem.
What is a big enough military? 10 times the size of our next competitor, twice that of all the rest of the world combined? 10 times that of the world combined? How will we pay for it all and who is going to join this army when we have had to lower recruitment standards to achieve the .5% of our population in the military now?
I'm not suggesting we do away with the military, but it is a place where cuts can and must be made. We can defend ourselves quite easily, but maintaining empire, not so much. The worst possible scenario that could happen did happen and that is when the liberal concept of spreading democracy met with the right wing love of the military and gave birth to Neoconsevatism.
While I consider China to be adversarial more than naturally cooperative, they garnished much of their military technology from the former Soviets which dare I say was a nice shiny red star painted over rust. After the fall of the Soviet Union it was soon realized that they were in no way on a technological par with the US and while China may have improved upon what they have, I don't currently see them as a military threat as much as an economic threat.
Leads me back to the reason why a serious and critical reassessment of our military expenditures needs to be made because like Russia, without a strong economy behind the bullets its a lot about naught.
I think a lot of people on the right view touching the sacred cow of defense spending as blaspheme, yet Robert Gates has had some really excellent ideas on how to cut military spending while trying to better tune the military to the most needed tasks of the day. One program is the use of Predator drones and robotic "warriors" in place of putting people and high cost equipment in harms way. Whether one agrees with this or not, it is to me the first step in modernizing our military beyond just equipment but more importantly in strategy, tactics and use of tools.
Personally I think this issue will cut the traditional conservatives from the neoconservatives, because its hard to call yourself a fiscal conservative and not at least take a serious hard look at military spending.
Hardly a new idea or approach, nor is it something not done by previous Republican administrations:
The Time article from Apl 4, 1983 is especially telling. When it comes to cutting defense spending and the military budget, Republicans revert to the tried and true method of smoke and mirrors.
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.
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.
