'Occupy' types

We could start with WWI, WWII, Cuban Missile Crises, Cold War, those are the easy ones.


You didn't answer my question, and those have nothing to do with what I asked. WWI and WWII were situations where people were being invaded without cause. This isn't the case now. We are invading and bombing people without justification.

Our govt may have its issues but its not unstable, thats ridiculous.
You think Obama has no control over our military leaders?
You think a coup is always imminent?

You know who Chalmers Johnson is? He was a consultant that worked with the CIA back in the 60's and 70's. I'll let him tell you the story of the CIA, the US government and Iran.


blt9_hy1di4

I'll respond to the other stuff later.

Who are we invading?
Who are we bombing without justification?

Who are we invading?
Who are we bombing without justification?

Iraq. Lybia. Iran....and possibly soon to be Syria.

You didn't answer my question, and those have nothing to do with what I asked. WWI and WWII were situations where people were being invaded without cause. This isn't the case now. We are invading and bombing people without justification.

Your the one talking about our current wars not me. I never said anything about them or freedom. I said our military gives us our freedoms we have today. I didn't say the war in Iraq was for our freedom or had anything to do with our freedom.

Iraq. Lybia. Iran....and possibly soon to be Syria.


We're out of Iraq.
Libya I didnt agree with either.
We are not invading or bombing Iran.....thats ridiculous.
Same goes for Syria, not today anyway. I would not be in favor of that either.
I'm fine watching them kill each other off by themselves.

We're out of Iraq.
Libya I didnt agree with either.
We are not invading or bombing Iran.....thats ridiculous.
Same goes for Syria, not today anyway. I would not be in favor of that either.
I'm fine watching them kill each other off by themselves.

Isn't that the truth. I'm thinking if we could just pass out small firearms to everyone over there they would kill each other off in a few years.

You didn't answer my question, and those have nothing to do with what I asked. WWI and WWII were situations where people were being invaded without cause. This isn't the case now. We are invading and bombing people without justification.

Isn't a U.N. Mandate enough of a reason?

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.

Well, I thought you were opposed to all those guys in riot gear? What do we need one in the US for?

There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.

Even in areas not in our control? Neutral territory? What happens when these pirates retreat to sovereign waters? - Do we end our chase? Do we violate another country's territorial waters? Or are just supposed "patrol only"? What size Navy is acceptable? Do we protect allied shipping? Might that draw us into foreign conflicts of which we have no part?

There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol

Iran is, at the least, doing a lot of saber rattling concerning its ability to manufacture and produce a nuclear weapons and affecting trade through the Straits of Hormuz. Are you comfortable with that particular regime having nuclear weapons? Do you believe it might have a destabilizing effect on the region? Might it have negative consequences for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq? If our allies in the region are, in fact, directly threatened by such developments what should our response be? How effective would they be with no military force to back them up?

Iran to unveil new nuclear fuel advance - report | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/uk-nuclear-iran-fuel-idUKTRE81D1PS20120214):
" Spent fuel can be reprocessed to make plutonium, potential bomb material, but Western worries about Iran's nuclear programme are focused on its enrichment of uranium, which can also provide the core of nuclear weapons if refined much more."

"Western powers fear that Iran's uranium enrichment programme is part of a covert bid to develop the means to build atomic weapons - suspicions that were given independent weight by a detailed U.N. nuclear watchdog report late last year."

Iran threatens to shut Straits of Hormuz with military manoeuvre | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073769/Iran-threatens-shut-Straits-Hormuz-military-manoeuvre.html#ixzz1mODWjPFT):

"Iran is threatening to close off the world's most important oil shipping lane as tensions between it and the West mount following the capture of an unmanned American spy plane."

"Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee, said his country was preparing to close off the crucial Strait of Hormuz as part of a military exercise."

"Around a third of all shipped oil passes through the four mile-wide Strait between Oman and Iran and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage."

There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.

So, we w/draw our military support of Taiwan (our 9th largest trade partner with a two-way trade of approximately $62,000,000,000). At the same time, we withdraw our troops from Japan and S. Korea. Okay. Nothing but good can come from that scenario - especially, when China decides to force the issue with Tiawan and presents them with the ultimatum "Assent to reunification or be invaded".

There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?

So, if we stop our drones, no one will spy on us? We shouldn't be flying our drones in an attempt to gain intelligence? We shouldn't try to shoot the drones over our space down? We shouldn't fund the military to protect the integrity of our air space? I thought the only military expense you acceeded to was home defense? What's [I]your point?

There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old?

Yes. No. Sorta. Is there an Al Queda terrorist behind every door? Nope. Do they still exist and are they still a threat to the US? Yes. What level of threat? Not sure - but enough of one to make sure we have resources to track and respond to them. In equating AQ with a "boogie man under the bed", are you suggesting we end funding of counter-terrorist military spending?

Current Al Queda leadership seems more interested in establishing a jihadist Middle East state rather than direct attacks on the US. With that said, however, ignoring their existence, pretending they pose NO threat or irrationally discounting the threat they do pose is being just as intellectually foolish as those who see AQ terrorists under their bed at night.

There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US.

What a BS response but a typical one for you - brilliantly logical and even handed. You truly delve into the crux of the issue. Not glib, one-sided or arrogant in any way.

So, the US govt. is the equivalent, moral and otherwise, to the autocratic, isolationist govt. of NK currently headed by a 29 year old with absolute power and no governing experience and access to weapons grade nuclear fuel. Oh, by the way, did we mention that this govt. borders our 7th largest trading partner and the world's 15th largest economy?
No worries, we've already w/drawn our troops.

Like it or not, we are a global nation with far flung interests and allies. We get drawn into the "World's Policeman" role to often and to easily. Sometimes from our own short sightedness (Iraq), sometimes believing it necessary (Afghanistan) and sometimes out of a desire to assist (Somalia comes to mind). Regardless, while a draw down should occur as we pull back from Afghanistan and Iraq, the days of isolationism are well past us and a strong, responsive military is necessary to uphold our promises to our friends and to ensure our trade.

Yup, we could do as Paul says and, essentially, withdraw from the world stage, but I suggest it would be economically devastating on many levels and a tragically destabilizing event in the world.

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom"..

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

And my point regarding the military and campaign contributions is simply that the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from it at all.

BUT: Assuming the only reason someone from the military would support Paul is because of his foreign policy positions AND that a contribution constitutes exactly the statement you purport it to be ("Many are tired of pointless fighting") - why is a statement by 2% of the military significant when the other 98% have made no statement or a statement to the contrary. Using your same logical constructs, one could just as easily assert that the silence of the other 96.5% constitutes support for the current US military activities.

By the way, 2% also assumes each $1.00 represents one active military person. If a more reasonable value is assigned - say, $10.00 per person, the sample size shrinks to .2% (rounding up) of military personnel. Pretty sure no reasonable statistician would draw any conclusions from that sample size.