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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
Right or wrong, the world depends on the US military to provide global stability. Right now, you and I are on the hook for the cost of this. I don't know how feasible this particular plan is, but I don't see anything wrong with brainstorming and thinking outside the box on ways to possibly spread the burden around, taking some of the burden off of us. I would like to see Hillary put the needs of Americans first for a change.
And just WHERE does the Constitution task us with giving a rat's ass about what the world depends on us for?
How did we get into Iraq in the first place? Why?
WMDs? Nope.
We went in and messed up the balance of power there. Was Saddam a good guy? Nope. But we were not invited to demolish the place, nor were we fixing anything. We went because people were screaming for blood after 9-11 and they were picked as the boogieman.
I agree with what you say here. It's not a popular opinion but I share it. I have never been a Bush supporter. IMO he saw Saddam give his daddy the finger and he took it personal and use the military to get even using 9/11 as the excuse. We would have been more correct to invade Saudi Arabia, that is where most of the attackers came from and were financed by. We have had a corrupt government for 15 years and it won't be made better by electing a crime boss like crooked Hillary with her criminal syndicate.
That's a mighty big problem for a candidate for the position of President of the United States to have. Especially at this point in the campaign. Maybe someone in his campaign should tell him to stop throwing out bad ideas when he's standing in front of a podium being asked questions about national security while being televised to a national and international audience.
I can't really disagree with this. But as I said at least he is trying to come up with ways to monetize the services that we provide to the world, currently on the backs of the American taxpayer. His idea about charging nations for the costs related to defending them is a good starting point. I don't know how we would go about doing this as this is not my expertise. I'm sure the devil is in the details, but if our government could figure out a way, I'd be all for it. One could say that Saudi Arabia is already paying us, but what about Germany, Japan, and all the other countries around the world that rely on us for protection?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
I agree with what you say here. It's not a popular opinion but I share it. I have never been a Bush supporter. IMO he saw Saddam give his daddy the finger and he took it personal and use the military to get even using 9/11 as the excuse. We would have been more correct to invade Saudi Arabia, that is where most of the attackers came from and were financed by. We have had a corrupt government for 15 years and it won't be made better by electing a crime boss like crooked Hillary with her criminal syndicate.
Ain't gonna be made better by electing an egotistical self-promoting con-man either.
I can't really disagree with this. But as I said at least he is trying to come up with ways to monetize the services that we provide to the world, currently on the backs of the American taxpayer. His idea about charging nations for the costs related to defending them is a good starting point. I don't know how we would go about doing this as this is not my expertise. I'm sure the devil is in the details, but if our government could figure out a way, I'd be all for it. One could say that Saudi Arabia is already paying us, but what about Germany, Japan, and all the other countries around the world that rely on us for protection?
Don't you think that his failure to think through these proposals before making them public for the national and international audience might say something about his temperament?
And your liar in chief continued the war in the Middle East. You conveniently forget about that?
Obama withdrew on Dubya's preset schedule that was put in place before he ever took office. And right wingers still wanted us to stay. But Iraq refused to sign the Status of Forces agreement that kept US military personnel subject to the UCMJ instead of Sharia law, so we left.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
It doesn't. But we do, and we are not going to ever stop, so we may as well look for ways to get the rest of the world to kick in.
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours. _____ Richard Bach
I disagree with the "we are not ever going to stop" statement, we'll stop just as soon as the lackluster hacks in Washington learn they aren't going to keep their nice cushy jobs if they continue sticking our collective nose where it doesn't belong.
Don't you think that his failure to think through these proposals before making them public for the national and international audience might say something about his temperament?
I don't know if temperament is the right word, but it is definitely a character flaw. This is the part of him that I don't like, but I weigh it with Hillary's character flaws as well as the differences in their ideas for our nation.
Thank you for your clarity regarding your position. I take it that you aren't supporting Trump? After all, he's the one proposing going into a nation, and forcibly stealing away their livelihood. Against multiple international laws, certainly the kind of thing NATO would want to prevent.
ISIS and Iran have taken the oil. Iraq has it stolen by looters. It is as if we went in like a bunch of rioters and destroyed the place and came home. Then looters followed and are taking the oil. They don't have it all yet but without some intervention they will have it all soon enough. Do looters have the protection of multiple international laws ? Where was NATO to prevent ISIS and Iran from looting a weak state ? Your crime boss crooked Hillary said we are going to continue doing what we have been doing and drag the war out by bombing them. Maybe she will get a little better at it than Obama by letting them actually drop the bombs on targets. It is a failed policy that drags on endlessly. Its not a solution that can solve the problem but only seeks to manage it poorly. It is consistent with her poor judgement and failures in the ME.
Why would she want to do that ? It is great if you consider she gets elected and in four years she can run again using the war as an excuse to get reelected. She will come out with some BS about how effective her policy has been and will work if you just elect her again. HOGWASH !!!!
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.
