The Grand New Party

None, if we don't draw down at the same time. BUT if we drew down, actually reduced the forces. We could save a bunch. BUT what would really save, would be putting new Hi Tech purchases on a 4 year hiatus. you could maintain force levels, and locations, but limit research/development, new spending and save a ton. Reducing force commitments outside the US would be the next step, and also save a ton. But the politicians must have their toys.

I will say, I fully disagree though with the one statement that was made by someone about SDI. We should be able to protect our country from any reasonably conceivable threat, and missiles are a real threat, which needs a real defense.

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we need the oil. The problem is that it doesn't belong to us.

I need more money -- that doesn't mean I can stroll into a bank with a gun and demand that they hand it over. I also can't figure out how or why anyone in the middle east, no matter who is in power, would deliberately cut off the flow of oil to the biggest consumer of it. Even when Saddam Hussein was in power after the first Gulf War we still bought oil from Iraq.

If they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to sell oil to us we would simply go to other sources. Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America anyway.

And steveo395 is exactly right; drill for our own oil resources here so we don't have to deal with the neanderthals in the middle east.
Thats why we buy the oil like when you guy to Best Buy and purchase an item.

See, this is where my libertarian instincts take over. I understand we need the oil. The problem is that it doesn't belong to us.

I need more money -- that doesn't mean I can stroll into a bank with a gun and demand that they hand it over. I also can't figure out how or why anyone in the middle east, no matter who is in power, would deliberately cut off the flow of oil to the biggest consumer of it. Even when Saddam Hussein was in power after the first Gulf War we still bought oil from Iraq.

If they wanted to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to sell oil to us we would simply go to other sources. Most of our oil comes from Canada and South America anyway.

And steveo395 is exactly right; drill for our own oil resources here so we don't have to deal with the neanderthals in the middle east.
Because there are some crazy ass people over there. We can't just walk away because we ahve a vested interest in the region. Plain and simple. I agree that it would be nice to be able to do such things but we can't.

So if your serving in the millitary do you want your goverment to stop spending on HI Tech equipment. I'd say that the high tec equipment saves lives and is a good investment.

Only in an offensive posture. If we are in a defensive posture, then our troops are not exposed, and they are less open to IED's or other cheap tactics. By your logic, we should be spending far more on Police then we are, for the same reason. but we don't.
I understand you can't just go cold turkey, but you can spend rationally, and not by Ferraris when the next closest competitor has an Acura.

All the points about drawing back I agree with in philosophy but they all get caught up in real world realities. We're not leaving Europe. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men and women fighting to keep their freedoms and we aren't just up and leaving them with their ass in the wind. The problem is national security isn't very simple. The arguments that defending ourselves mean we have to go out into the world to keep threats from originating before they get to us isn't frivolous. It makes sense...and it is an inordinately subjective premise. At least in application.

All the points about drawing back I agree with in philosophy but they all get caught up in real world realities. We're not leaving Europe. We sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men and women fighting to keep their freedoms and we aren't just up and leaving them with their *** in the wind. The problem is national security isn't very simple. The arguments that defending ourselves mean we have to go out into the world to keep threats from originating before they get to us isn't frivolous. It makes sense...and it is an inordinately subjective premise. At least in application.
I do understand this, but if this is still about a "new" party's defining principles, I maintain that the ideal should be one of minimal military intervention, and to maintain a defensive posture. If we did that it would lead to a natural reduction in the Army, and a greater emphasis on the Intelligence divisions, and a strong navy, air force and local space command (not missions to galaxies 5million lightyears away). None of this diminishes the role of National Security, but does lead away from Presidents having to occupy our Army with missions outside of our borders.
I make most of my arguments here in the context of where we should be heading, not necessarily, where we could be tomorrow.

5) I honestly can't envision a scenario where a ground attack against US soil could occur without 1-4 having occurred and been successful. That means we have little need for a STANDING army. We do need equipment properly maintained, and an officer corps, but the soldiers should come from some sort of 2 year mandatory service, or something.You never saw Red Dawn? :)

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait?

I could see Iraq too. We should cozy up to the Russians. They're swimming in oil. Executive Outcomes are protecting the Nigerian oil fields. I see no national interest in Europe?I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter.

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.

You never saw Red Dawn? :)

I did, loved it at the time. I should add it to the list of movies that made me cry, when they were reading the monument memorial at the end.

I guess our treaties and committments to NATO/Japan/Taiwan etc. don't matter.

Also, ever heard the best defense is a good offense. Bottom line, there are people who would like to impose their will on others through use of force. They don't becasue we have a bigger stick. We pull back our front line bases and we're potentially giving ground to bad guys. Bad guys don't stop, they keep going when they sense weakness. We keep our front line bases out there and make the enemies keep playing defense.

Our founding fathers, who many admire, warned of Foreign entanglements. Yes our obligations matter, but they should not override our sensibilities.

Maintaining a strong defense does not have to be a sign of weakness, and you can have a huge military like we do, but if your political leadership is weak, you will not be respected anyways.