Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You never had so many utterly stupid anarchists in positions of influence in your party along with millions of like minded voters backing themGee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.
I agree that toppling saddam was a mistakeISIS would have never been in Iraq were a power vacuum not created with the removal of Hussein. Period.
Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the militaryou were better with your first sentence,
China will rule the world including the US
Not my party. Still an Independent. I did vote Democrat this year (except for Senator Elect Hagerty). But, I knew Joe Biden was more centrist than left. That is why he won. Most people don't like radical trumpism, but the left loonies could not win the primaries. So it was going to take more than just anti-trump vote, so the democrats went with a normal centrist of good character. Apparently, most people are like me as shown by the Presidential race and the Congressional races. Heck, which cities even voted in a mayor that ran supporting that defund thing? None that I know of and certainly none in Tennessee. I heard all the defund BS this year, just wasn't gullible enough to swallow it as a serious thing by serious people. When the version of reality isn't real, feel free not to believe it. Most American didn't. Now I hear sour grapes from people in congress blaming the defund nutballs for losing seats. Probably true. We didn't have any defund candidates in Tennessee. Most of our politicians of both parties are fairly serious people.You never had so many utterly stupid anarchists in positions of influence in your party along with millions of like minded voters backing themGee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.
dems are the party that wants to defund the police and replace them with social workers
I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11? Waging and winning battles was not a problem. Going there at all was the problem. You have to watch defense bugets or somebody like Cheney will come along and want to start blowing shit up just to finance big dreams of fellow defense contractors. If not careful you can find yourself still there 20 years later.Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the militaryou were better with your first sentence,
China will rule the world including the US
After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.
Historicaly everytime this nation has let its military slide it has soon been caught up short and had to bust its ass scrambling to recover from its stupidity. Its good to remember that when WWII broke out US troops were training with broom sticks for guns and small trucks in place of tanks while its AF was practically non existant. Its the epitome of pennywise and pound foolish....make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?
Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.
One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).
But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.
So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?
Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".
Not sure I agree completely with all his assessments of the Blowback series of books. I am right in line with the quote of him in "Cold Warrier In A Strange Land", saying "I was a cold warrior. There's no doubt about that. I believed the Soviet Union was a genuine menace. I still think so." Cannot write of someone that astute and accurate.As Chalmers Johnson said in the documentary Why We Fight, "We have an empire. There is not excuse for 725 military bases in 130 foreign countries."
When we got the empire, we lost the republic.
...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?
Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.
One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).
But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.
So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?
Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".
I was in the military at that time. We trained. We were equipped, we supported/ led the effort in Bosnia, and Kosovo. Heck, I was at V Corp, G3 shop part of the time when that was going on. We did the missions that needed done during all the Clinton years and under the budget forced by New Gingrich. So was the US not ready to kick ass after 9/11?Gee, I been around a long time, including at least 6 to 9 democrat administrations (depending on how you count) and they have never gutted it before. Sounds like hysterical nonsense to me.Given a Democrat one-party state its not speculation about what will happen after libs gut the militaryou were better with your first sentence,
China will rule the world including the US
After inflation military spending during the Clinton Admin. declined by something on the order of 30-40% as did the size of the active duty military.
Do you know how many people you are contaminating, how small the both Koreas are?...make it the policy of the U.S. to use nuclear weapons liberally if necessary?
Across four separate political discussion boards I see the repeated whining about how the U.S. spends too much on its military. Some have even insisted the U.S. could cut its annual military by 50%.
One of the main things used as a basis for this is President Eisenhower's famed "military industrial complex speech" (actually military industrial governmental complex).
But what almost everyone ignores is that Eisenhower was a big supporter of using nuclear weapons if necessary as a response to conventional military attacks. And Eisenhower took it seriously. When he took office the Korean War was still going on. Eisenhower threatened the Chinese with the use of nuclear weapons. And Ike meant it. He ordered the dropping and detonations of several nuclear weapons across the North Pacific.
So in order to cut the U.S. defense budget by half, would you be willing to support the casual use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.? For example if North Korea attacks South Korea again would you support the U.S. conducted a wide ranging nuclear attack on the North? If Iran attacked Saudi Arabia or tried to close the Straits of Hormuz would you support the U.S. making selected nuclear strikes on Iran?
Don't pretend that if the U.S. cuts its defense budget that the other nations on Earth are simply going to "act nice".
Its your party now and for the next 4 yearsNot my party. Still an Independent. I did vote Democrat this year (except for Senator Elect Hagerty). But, I knew Joe Biden was more centrist than left.
I am thinking that the OP does not want to use nukes in Korea and he is pointing out the danger of reducing the US conventionsl military to levels that would make it impossible to defend S KoreaDo you know how many people you are contaminating, how small the both Koreas are?
It is not your issue anyway. First, South Korea is not a weak spot, they can defend themselves, second, without that Uncle Sam in their back, Seoul would have more interest in an understanding with the north. Just walk away and watch the things solving themselves.I am thinking that the OP does not want to use nukes in Korea and he is pointing out the danger of reducing the US conventionsl military to levels that would make it impossible to defend S KoreaDo you know how many people you are contaminating, how small the both Koreas are?
Under the current lib president S Korea has bent over backwards to improve relations with the NorthIt is not your issue anyway. First, South Korea is not a weak spot, they can defend themselves, second, without that Uncle Sam in their back, Seoul would have more interest in an understanding with the north. Just walk away and watch the things solving themselves.
I don´t think so. What Trump announced four years ago would not have erased the US military from the world´s surface. It would have made SK pay up in case of defense.Under the current lib president S Korea has bent over backwards to improve relations with the NorthIt is not your issue anyway. First, South Korea is not a weak spot, they can defend themselves, second, without that Uncle Sam in their back, Seoul would have more interest in an understanding with the north. Just walk away and watch the things solving themselves.
just walking away as you suggest will lead to south korea becoming a chinese puppet state
You dont think so what?I don´t think so.
o --and I was in the USMC for 8 years!! my father was at the Chosin...4 uncles in Korea and WW2!!!Run for office as a socialistit's a double triple/etc win:We can military spending easily by closing the vast majority of our military bases around the world, stop fighting other people's wars, and bring our solider back to our own borders.
...we stop spending tax $$$ sending people overseas--AND back
...we stop giving other countries our $$$
....those troops will then spend their $$$$ in the US and not in other countries
..so--cut down on spending and increase $$$ to the US economy
...tax $$$ spent in foreign countries on bases/food/etc will be spent here in the US
how can anyone NOT agree to this!!!!!?????
