The Grand New Party

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

How about we take all of the troops out of Korea, Japan, Bosnia, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Africa, and Kuwait? How much money would we save then? We should be protecting our own borders, not someone else's.

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I think this is a good idea too -- one of the chief reasons Republicans got their asses kicked out last year was because the voters saw the GOP as the party that saw no end in sight in Iraq. McCain postulating that we could be there for another "hundred" years didn't help matters.

You can still be strong on national defense without acting like police chief of the planet Earth. Dropping the "tough foreign policy" act would send another signal to the voters that the truly conservative thing to do would be to withdraw the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all over the world -- especially when everyone knows we can't afford it anyway.

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can bitch and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the damn thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

Which is why we need to drill more of our own oil so we can tell the middle east to go screw themselves. There is not one good reason not to drill for more oil in America. The environmental argument makes no sense because the oil is getting drilled no matter what. If we don't drill it, the Arabs will, and then we have to buy it for them. Plus we would probably get the oil in a much cleaner way because we actually care, so it would actually be better for the environment.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

I think your facts are coming from a biased slant, but truthfully, I don't have any better facts. However, the governments primary military job is our defense, and I know they have had successful tests of the system. My other argument goes more to a logical assertion.
If missile defense did not work, then Russia would not have had conniptions when putting the system in eastern europe. Instead, the threat alone nearly killed Russian American relations. To me, that says that the research has produced some benefits.

Our government should attempt to protect us from the threat of incoming missiles. That is a far more real threat than a land invasion ever has been. And yet we maintain a huge Army that can do very little for our self-defense. We should invest what it takes to protect us from real threats.

Having said that, if it is the black hole effect that bothers you, I certainly understand that, and SDI ought to be open to scrutiny and proof that they are progressing.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

We can and should get our oil from our own resources, but on the other hand, countries will sell us oil. If they don't they would lose a heap lot o' money.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Do a little research on SDI...we've been at it nearly 3 decades and conservative estimates have the cost around $1 trillion, though the real expenditure is said to be much higher. What do we have to show for it today? Almost nothing. It doesn't work. I've heard top military brass on documentaries say it's no more realistic today than it was 20 years ago. Basically, if you had to pinpoint the single most wasteful program of all time nothing, absolutely nothing, can hold a candle to SDI. Again we can *** and moan and wring our hands over SS, which has on overhead of a few tenths of a percent, or even medicare. But in both cases we're at least getting something from the program. There is total consensus that SDI is non-operational and nobody has been able to say "this is what we need to make it work" or something to that effect. Hell just a few years ago, before the economic indicators fell through the floor, i remember reading an article where Bush discussed outlays of another trillion to finally make the *** thing work (to be fair i believe his proposal included another system in Europe as well) but that doesn't take away from the reality...we've likely spent trillions on something that is no more cogent than a 9mm.

Also, while 1TRILLION dollars, or 3 TRILLION if we go high is ungodly amount of money, if you put it in context of nearly 30 years, and then consider what our government has spent over that same 30 years, I would still maintain, that this project is actually what we should spend money on. My whole argument rests in my belief that the military should first and foremost defend our country from the most realistic threats. What are those?
1) has to be a terrorist attack - this requires intelligence work to protect us

2) sub launched or air attacks - Naval and Air Force are required for this

3) attacks against our satellites - SDI and its off chutes are required to protect these

4) a missile attack, most likely one or two fired, not likely that any country would have the capacity to flood our airspace with missiles. - SDI again is the only reasonable defense, along with retaliatory capabilities

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The problem with leaving Iraq in the way you state is this. WE NEED OIL. It's the only reason we've evr concerned ourselves with the Middle East. The same stuff goes on in Africa and we barely care but in the ME we are Johnny on the Spot. We can't just leave because we have an actual national interest there.

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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?

Is the military to defend national interests, and how is that defined. The broader the definition, the broader the scope of the military. Some, like Clinton, have argued our national interest lies in peace in Bosnia/Herzogovenia, others like Bush, argue it lies in Iraq. As long as that is the criteria for our military, it will never really be reduced. I think you can make a successful argument for European stability being in the US' economic national interest.

I think the conversation should shift back to having a defensive vs offensive military posture.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

[FRPLG]

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.