The debt and foreign policy

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
So we know that conservatives are worried about the debt and our profligate spending, but we also know that many conservatives support our continued military involvement around the world. So my question is how can we honestly address the debt and maintain our current foreign policy? Obviously we know that conservatives would like to "reform" or end entitlement programs, but that's only one portion of the problem. So what would conservatives on USMB change about our foreign policy, if anything, to try to help reign in the debt?
 
well, first off, how is anything with as much collusion as our foriegn policy going to assume some sort of 'honest' approach when so many biased entites are all about their own self enlightened interests KK?
 
Last edited:
I'm not a conservative, but I suggest a simple solution for dealing with our debt:

Give Alaska to the Chinese.

First, it would settle our debt with the Chinese.

Second, we could let the Russians & the Chinese could fight out who owns it after that and just sit back and watch.

Third, and best of all, Sarah Palin goes with it!
 
and the Ruskies would kill for Palin>
nailin_palin.jpg
 
well, first off, how is anything with as much collusion as our foriegn policy going to assume some sort of 'honest' approach when so many biased entites are all about their own self enlightened interests KK?

One could say the same of anything government does. The question, however, is what would you do, assuming you could do anything.
 
I don't understand how Republicans can justify keeping every foreign military base open. It costs us over 600 billion a year and serves no purpose. There is a tiny shred of validity to continuing the wars, but the foreign military bases seem like a no brainer.
 
I don't understand how Republicans can justify keeping every foreign military base open. It costs us over 600 billion a year and serves no purpose. There is a tiny shred of validity to continuing the wars, but the foreign military bases seem like a no brainer.

How much have the wars cost us? Not that that cost is actually on the books. I'm not sure about the validity of continuing these wars if you're serious about dealing with the debt.
 
I don't understand how Republicans can justify keeping every foreign military base open. It costs us over 600 billion a year and serves no purpose. There is a tiny shred of validity to continuing the wars, but the foreign military bases seem like a no brainer.

How much have the wars cost us? Not that that cost is actually on the books. I'm not sure about the validity of continuing these wars if you're serious about dealing with the debt.

I'm all for ending the wars too.

The argument comes from whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan will devolve into chaos once we leave. Personally, I don't give a shit about those countries. Our troops and national solvency are more important to me than some moronic backwards ass countries.
 
The foreign policy question that needs to be answered is , should the United States continue to be the policeman of the world? Should we go to war to protect American interest abroad? If the answer to these questions are yes, then we have no choice but to maintain a large military and fight endless wars around the world.

The alternative is do what most other countries in world do. Protect their boarders and stay out of the business of other countries.
 
The foreign policy question that needs to be answered is , should the United States continue to be the policeman of the world? Should we go to war to protect American interest abroad? If the answer to these questions are yes, then we have no choice but to maintain a large military and fight endless wars around the world.

The alternative is do what most other countries in world do. Protect their boarders and stay out of the business of other countries.

Both are a double edged sword. By protecting our interests we create hatred and contempt towards us. It was one of Osama Bin Laden's driving forces.

Conversely, if we do nothing then we leave our interests abroad up the winds of fate. That is, unless we get off our lazy asses and secure alternative means to fulfill our interests locally.
 
The foreign policy question that needs to be answered is , should the United States continue to be the policeman of the world? Should we go to war to protect American interest abroad? If the answer to these questions are yes, then we have no choice but to maintain a large military and fight endless wars around the world.

The alternative is do what most other countries in world do. Protect their boarders and stay out of the business of other countries.

But how might a conservative address endless wars and trying to get a handle on our debt? As I see it, for all their talk they can't have it both ways. Without drastically changing our foreign policy there is no way to seriously address the debt. That's why I'm interested in what the conservatives have to say on the subject. Are they willing to change our foreign policy, or do they really believe that the entitlements are the only problems?
 
Conversely, if we do nothing then we leave our interests abroad up the winds of fate
Those interest are not specifically our interest. They are the interest of most all major countries on earth. However, other countries look to the US to supply about 95% of the troops and dollars simply because we allocate the dollars and manpower and they don't. I think that needs to change.
 
Much of our foreign policy is not driven by "our" interests.

"Our" interest would mean for the greater good and/or protection of the US commonweal.

Clearly in far too many cases our foreign policies are not serving the interests of the commonweal.

Now there's nothing exceptional about that. In that sense the USA is not unique.

Nations foreign policies are often crafted to help the insiders who control those nations.

The people are simply pawns sent to kill and die for those interests.

And of course the cost of these foreign adventures is generally paid for by the people who see little (often no) benefit from such policies.

Such is the nature of geopolitics.
 
Last edited:
well, first off, how is anything with as much collusion as our foriegn policy going to assume some sort of 'honest' approach when so many biased entites are all about their own self enlightened interests KK?

One could say the same of anything government does. The question, however, is what would you do, assuming you could do anything.

demand transparency & clarity , and publicly expose the profiteers and opportunists to the public, and allow US an informed choice

anyone who thinks we actually have that now is either dumber than a bag of hammers, or suffres from partisan delusion
 
I don't understand how Republicans can justify keeping every foreign military base open. It costs us over 600 billion a year and serves no purpose. There is a tiny shred of validity to continuing the wars, but the foreign military bases seem like a no brainer.

I don't think it costs $600 billion a year to keep the bases open. Does it?

I don't feel like tracking down the numbers, but I thought procurement was about half the budget of ~$800 billion.

But maybe I'm wrong, I don't know.
 
Instead of focusing on one why not grow a nad and take on both? Why not start by cutting social entitlements and military by 30 percent? Those are our two biggest items.
 
Last edited:
Instead of focusing on one why not grow a nad and take on both? Why not start by cutting social entitlements and military by 30 percent? Those are our two biggest items.

Well something must obviously be done about both, but you don't generally see progressives worried about the debt. There's no progressive Tea Party calling for an end to spending, for example. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to attacking our out of control debt, but you don't hear many of them talking about changing our foreign policy. So while you're right that we need to address both issues, and I would say by far more than 30%, this thread is specifically about how conservatives would change our foreign policy to address the debt they seem to be so worried about. Interestingly we're not getting much of a response from the conservatives on this board.
 
Instead of focusing on one why not grow a nad and take on both? Why not start by cutting social entitlements and military by 30 percent? Those are our two biggest items.

Well something must obviously be done about both, but you don't generally see progressives worried about the debt. There's no progressive Tea Party calling for an end to spending, for example. Conservatives, on the other hand, have taken to attacking our out of control debt, but you don't hear many of them talking about changing our foreign policy. So while you're right that we need to address both issues, and I would say by far more than 30%, this thread is specifically about how conservatives would change our foreign policy to address the debt they seem to be so worried about. Interestingly we're not getting much of a response from the conservatives on this board.

I think you know exactly why they are hesitant to concede defense spending cuts.

They've been scared shitless by the media for the last 10 years on terrorism, and they think we need to continue spending every dime PLUS some.

It's as simple as that.
 
I'm not a conservative, but I suggest a simple solution for dealing with our debt:

Give Alaska to the Chinese.

First, it would settle our debt with the Chinese.

Second, we could let the Russians & the Chinese could fight out who owns it after that and just sit back and watch.

Third, and best of all, Sarah Palin goes with it!

We are already over populated with morons, Throw yourself into the bargain whydonchya?
 
The foreign policy question that needs to be answered is , should the United States continue to be the policeman of the world? Should we go to war to protect American interest abroad? If the answer to these questions are yes, then we have no choice but to maintain a large military and fight endless wars around the world.

The alternative is do what most other countries in world do. Protect their boarders and stay out of the business of other countries.

not exactly. like it or not deterrence has always been a benchmark, MAD, etc. The paradigm has just shifted.


Our deterrence in the wake of the ussr falling is now focused on the Chinese and Terrorism in that the age old concept of strategic freedom for commerce is paramount.

The geography of the world being what it is, chokes points exit that help maintain that commercial freedom. There fore we need to maintain some semblance of advance bases securing these choke points.

I personally think we should scale back the manpower aspect as in amour and infantry as these are less technically challenging and intensive to rehabilitate if we need them where in you cannot create aircraft carriers, superior aircraft in a year, as you could with infantry and armored divisions.


Now, the marines and army combined are being reduced by 47,000 troops. platforms as in heavy artillery and tanks are being pared back also.

HOWEVER we have also canceled the F-22 at 187 aircraft and have only 11 carrier air grp.s on hand and have canceled 3 of 5 of the next generation Carrier, the Gerald Ford class, we are only taking the 2, because there was ( always is for these alike platforms) huge front loaded costs paid for in 03 and 06.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top