Well, is the cost of preventing mischief more than the cost of responding to mischief? As I alluded to above, I’m not referring to the Cold War. The U.S.S.R. was certainly capable of more than mischief, and I agree that deterrence was a worthwhile strategy.
I, frankly, do not see such an opponent in the world today. In conventional war, I think it is far more likely that Russia and China will war before either attacks us; in nuclear war, we still hold deterrence, even against the likes of Iran or North Korea.
I agree. I think that we need a standing military that is large enough to deter and flexible enough to react. A smaller force backed with superior technology with tanks in mothballs in case we have to repel a horde or two.
For those of us old enough to remember, the bs being peddled by Moto & Co is exactly the same as what was peddled 40 years ago with Vietnam.
The republic survived and prospered once we got that one out of the way. The same will happen again with this one.
As for the Presidents involved in that one, LBJ and Nixon are two of the most reviled presidents this country has ever had, and rightly so. Dubya will join their company, as will anyone who allies themselves with him.
The difference this time is that there is in fact a real threat, over in Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan. What we need is an Administration that recognizes where the real threat is, and recognizes that stretching the military thin by trying to keep a lid on Iraq does nothing for US interests.
Or, to put it the way the editorialist in Barron’s put it two years ago, losing slowly is no different than losing quickly. Better to admit the loss and get on to where the real work of defending this country is, rather than continue to indulge the ego and fantasy of this President and his deluded supporters.
I know barely anything about economics but I know this is wrong. The United States, and just about any other Western, industrialized power, is a mixed economy. Do you wish to purge them of all ‘socialism’?
That’s the problem ever since the USSR fell – we need an enemy and pronto! Terrorism isn’t sexy although it does scare the crap out of people. China is our frenemy (thanks, Stephen). Hey, maybe Russia will go back to being ruled by a dictator! You can just feel the sunny optimism in wishing hundreds of millions of people can go back to living in an Orwellian society so you can start to feel good about throwing your weight around.
I agree with Evil One when it comes to the Democrats though. They are more or less screwed as far as I see unless they walk on eggshells and get lucky. Entire books could be written on the reasons why but the American people really have to be persuaded to vote against the Republicans. If anything scary happens, even if it doesn’t make any sense, they’ll just go back and vote for 'em.
Just remember, although the Dems did win as a whole the last election they just barely won each seat – and this is, well, after the last years of Bush and his friends. Scary, ain’t it?
And, I see that Frank has conveyed many of my feelings on why a huge standing military is not needed to defend the USA. The “having a big ol’ military for deterrence” spiel doesn’t work for me. I think we effectively deter just by our huge force potential (made possible by our vast natural resources, state-of-the-art manufacturing capabilities and a giant pool of potential fighting personnel).
Again–potential enemy invaders (and who are those again?) need look no further than our powerful mobilization and rapid force buildup in WWII to know why we are not to be trifled with even if we don’t have a Cold War-sized standing military.
But I suppose if we don’t have 10,000,000 units of every single possible new weapons system, 74 carrier battle groups and 80,000 ICBMs then the terrorists win.
Ah, yes, your position really is no more than “They’re all just stupid.” Thanks for confirming that. :rolleyes:
And yet we still get regular and frequent complaints about the board’s liberal Democratic tilt. Is that view of this board simply false, or could it simply be that intelligent and interested can tend toward what you define as liberalism, at least as or more so than what you define as conservatism?
And yet the people not doing the planning and making things go badly are the “strong on defense” party that right-thinking people should naturally support. Go figure.
Here’s a thought for you: If they’re stereotypes as you say, don’t then try to tell us they’re factual. That shit doesn’t work here no matter how often you repeat it.
I said that if no attacks happen for the rest of GWB’s presidency and then comes after a democrat is elected to the presidency it would be a disaster for the democrats. Once again, it will be the moderates who will make that happen. If my scenario actually comes to pass, partisans on both sides will simply reverse the arguments they used against Bush and Clinton over 9/11.
[/QUOTE]
It is my belief that our correct actions in the ME, very heavy handed, acting the part of Rome, etc. plays into the Islamist’s hands. The batle from the Islamist POV is less at this point agianst us, as it is a battle for the soul of the Arab world. Saving it from modernity, saving it from the fate that awaits as she becomes part of the world’s society of societies. Nothing like an infidel in your midst to rally people to the cause. And they know it.
A phased withdrawl is not what they want. They know what the reaction to another 9-11 scale attack would likely be … renewed support for aggressively trying to hunt the terrorists down on their turf and escalation in Iraq and Afganistan. We are predictable that way.
You see where I am going with this. Any announcement of phased withdrawl needs to be met with an increase in home security … done right.
Can you imagine the furor if a Dem was President, and a high official said that?
Drives me batty sometimes. (I know, it’s a short drive. :))
You’d think that the Right wouldn’t let even their own get away with this sort of nonsense. Even if he’s right on one level or another, the fact is, bin Laden is the man responsible for killing nearly 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Even a dirty fucking hippie like me wants him brought to justice.
To quote Humphrey Bogart (as Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon):
It’s hard for me to break away from the underlying logic of that statement. You can’t go letting people kill your countrymen. They’re you’re fellow citizens, and you’re supposed to do something about it. It’s bad business to let the killer get away with it, bad all around, bad for every American everywhere.
The next bin Laden (or maybe the same one, yet one more time) is going to conclude that he can plan another job like 9/11, and even if it succeeds, the Americans will get distracted, and let the trail grow cold, just like they did the last time, while he hangs out in North Waziristan.
Maybe we should declare March 13, 2002 as “We Don’t Give A Fuck About Bin Laden Day,” and celebrate its anniversary each year with “Where in the world is Osama bin Laden? Oh, that’s right, we don’t give a fuck” parties:
Must be just me, but it appears that Mr Moto (and his very loud echo, Evil One) would be perfectly content to live in a nation with a one Party system – Light and Regular.
BTW, Frank, some rather keen comments on the military and what their role should be overall. You won’t get any arguments from me as your views pretty much reflect my own – or vice versa, not sure who’s older.
It’s like this Spanish right-wing obsession with Morocco; they want to make sure we have a super-army that can beat them at least twice. 'cause as we all know, once is not enough.
Did we have a one-party system in the Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy era? Or was the two-party system strongest then?
I don’t for one second want a Democratic party that is like the Republicans. I would like one that is like the Democrats used to be, before the cancer of McGovernism infected the party.