---------------------------- by the way , I am no repub , can't stand them Paul !!
Gallup- Americans Less Likely to See U.S. as No. 1 Militarily
- Thread starter Geaux4it
- Start date
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,163
- 1,130
You all break them, the least you could do is contribute more to fixing them. Every warmonger should be held accountable on that. They should have to contribute their own time and money to helping them and their families.
Or, they should at least be required to volunteer at VA hospitals so they can see up close the horrific suffering they cause. It might give them a healthier perspective on the issue of war.
Last edited:
paulitician
Platinum Member
- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,163
- 1,130
My bad, but you are coming off as being a typical warmongering Neocon (Nazi) Republican. Just sayin.
--------------------------------------- just for honesties sake , I was registered repub from about 1970 till about 2006 then switched to Libertarian , small L libertarian because I don't want open borders or ANY immigration . I voted for 'gwb' one time but his trying to push an amnesty made me switch I think Paul .
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,734
- 225,277
- 3,615
Name a country and I will let you know if we should be afraid of them
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,734
- 225,277
- 3,615
Our military needs to be large enough to respond to present day threats
Where are the threats to our nation to justify the current size of our military?
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
I love how Republicans are all about honoring the Founders intentions for the country, except when it comes to foreign policy. The Founders were adamant that the US avoid the wars which sapped the vitality of every empire building nation in Europe. The US was to focus their efforts on building their own nation at home. International ambitions come with a hefty price tag. Better to sell equipment and weapons to the Europeans, and stay our of their incessant wars. Only these days it's the Middle East, but the Founders would probably have the same advice. Mind the business of your own nation first.
Republicans have not done this. And every Republican presidential candidate is completely bought into the idea of putting more boots in the ground in the ME. You're bankrupting you nation against the best advice the Founders ever gave you.
Equipping and maintaining a large standing army is expensive. It was one of the main downfalls of the Roman Empire. Every Republican politician should be required to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, because the US is making many of the same mistakes the Romans made, in terms of their military.
Republicans have not done this. And every Republican presidential candidate is completely bought into the idea of putting more boots in the ground in the ME. You're bankrupting you nation against the best advice the Founders ever gave you.
Equipping and maintaining a large standing army is expensive. It was one of the main downfalls of the Roman Empire. Every Republican politician should be required to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, because the US is making many of the same mistakes the Romans made, in terms of their military.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
The Romans didn't let barbarians into Rome. The Empire was too large. Rome's armies were all garrisoned in the provinces and satellite states. There was no army in Rome itself. No army was allowed to cross the Rubicon lest the army be used to revolt against the lawfully elected government.
A neo isolationist challenged GHWBush in 1992 primaries and your lib media marginalized him with Political Correctness.
He had my vote. Indeed, his support came from the hard right.
And for that matter, Bill Clinton was in charge for the best time for disentanglement and did nothing of the sort.
True.
THe Roman army left them into Germany, within the Empire, provided they swore an Oath of Allegiance so that they would be good little Roman subjects.
Somehow though, the promises they made failed to change their basic character and they in short order ended up rampaging though the EMpire.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,734
- 225,277
- 3,615
Carter reduced the military after Vietnam. It is what you are supposed to do
Obama's reductions are the result of pulling troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan and the stupid 10% sequester that Congress forced on him
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Really? Explain that one. There was a draft during Vietnam. Once the conflict is over, those men get to go home. That's an automatic reduction. You're not making any sense.
Why didn't you address the sequestration issue?
ThunderKiss1965
Diamond Member
China has a larger Army.
A reduction in manpower makes sense when the war is over.
But while the US was mired in Vietnam, the soviets were building tanks and planes and nukes.
Our conventional forces needed upgraded and our military needed to have the damage of Vietnam fixed.
Did you ever see the military build up that Carter Planned for after the Soviets sent him a reality check with their invasion of Afghanistan?
It was GLORIOUS.
Even Carter realize, albeit late, that the military needed more funding, not less.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,734
- 225,277
- 3,615
Reagan tried to rebuild by throwing money at it. Problem is he spent money to fight the wrong war and bought equipment to fight the wrong mission
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
And Reagan took care of that didn't he. He went and outspent the Russians. We have our looming debt to show for it.
You're still dodging the current sequestration issue. Funny that.
Similar threads
