Discussion in 'Military' started by Kevin_Kennedy, Jul 1, 2009.
PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice - Washington Times
The idiot GoP simply adopted the FDR/Truman thing about being world police and now they can't let go.
Why do we have to 'fight them' anywhere?
I find I really don't care who runs Iran as long as they leave me alone.
Sounds like the attitude most Americans had just before WWII.
Most Americans, not counting the government whose "neutrality" vastly favored the Allies.
And with good reason. There was no good reason to believe that the Nazis (or for that matter the jihadist) are willing to limit the scope of their operations in any way shape or form.
Paul is clearly wrong on several counts. First, we are no longer bogged down in Iraq and will be out of there in a couple of years with any luck at all. We would have been out of there in a couple of years no matter who won the last election. Like it or not we won that little set to. The victory would have been even quicker had not Rumsfeld had his haed up his ass and been more willing to listen to the commanders in the field.
2nd You can never be so strong that no one would dare attack you. 9/11 showed that. The power disparity between the US and the entire third world is such that in a straight stand up fight even fore going the Use of nuclear weapons in an all out total war a la WWII we could kill 90% of them for the loss of not more than 200 or 300 men. Everyone knows that. That's why the Mullahs in Iran are scrambling to build a credible nuclear deterent.
3rd the world is full of assholes. It always has been and very likely always will be. Giving assholes a free hand in the rest of the world simply guarantees that we will eventually be fighting them here whether we like it or not. Even Jeffereson himself founf it necessary to ally with some unsavory types in the middle east to shut down the barbary pirates in 1803.
Paul's first paragraph is dead on. We should surrender no American freedoms whatever because some clown in a foreign country thinks we ought to. After that it's ostrich time.
And what did the US get out of WWII, besides killing nearly half a million americans?
How exactly was supporting Stalin better then defeating Hitler?
What was the good benifit for supporting a fascist thug like Chiang Kai Shek?
How did the US benifit by prolonging the two biggest slave empires in the world, the UK and France?
The USA did the heavy lifting, but for what?
Because had we not done so The odds are better than even that Hitler wins. And Patton was right as soon as we were done with Hitler we should have just headed East.
A 'Hitler win' is the same as a Stalin win.
The only difference is the Russians hid the bodies better.
It's sound strategy. Why mess up your own yard?
Separate names with a comma.