Romney to defend the world and U.S

[Saren]

Suck it Obama supporters.

http://rt.com/usa/news/romney-military-power-safe-449/

This is why we MUST elect Romney, he knows the true threats in this world. Unlike the myths of the economy being broken created and spread by Obama and the Democrats.

We can all see that the election will end up in Obama vs. Romney so I hope you guys make the right choice here.

The U.S isn't the glorious nation it once was and there are many threats such as communism, Russia, and Iran that are going to tear the U.S apart unless we spend more on the military and expand our military influence even more.

There is no negotiating with terrorists.

[Iron-Hampster]

but he just openly admitted that he wants to increase spending. That's the thing with NeoConservatism, eventually you run out of other people's money!

When that happens I don't think he's going to be the kind of guy who will admit he dun goofed though, I think he is going to force Austerity on the middle class (the only people who pay taxes any more). Its brilliant really, if we run out of other peoples money, we can just take more of some one else's!

That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.

[Camarohusky]

Vultures are scavengers, not predators.

[GameBlade]

I think like the first comment on the topic that the U.S meddles to much with conflicts around the world. And the cause of the many enemies of the U.S is probably because of that. What I don't understand, and that is because I am not from the United States, is the conservatism and the power religion has in politics. While people say the U.S is the most free society in the world, which I believe is not, they openly declare war on the rights of others.

Neither can I understand that solidarity and the state doesn't go together. People believe that the states shouldn't allow gay marriage as an example because of their religion but in the mean time I can't see that the government helpes the poor as they should by christianity, what looks like a state religion to my opinion.

[aviewaskewed]

At 5/29/12 09:44 AM, Saren wrote: Suck it Obama supporters.

Awesome way to start a topic!

This is why we MUST elect Romney, he knows the true threats in this world.

Like Osama Bin Laden? Like Qhaddaffi? Al-Awacki? The Underwear Bomber? Or any of the other terrorists that have been killed under this President?

Unlike the myths of the economy being broken created and spread by Obama and the Democrats.

And economists! Boy do I hate those economists! Just because they have degrees and studied this stuff doesn't mean they know anything! Geez!

We can all see that the election will end up in Obama vs. Romney so I hope you guys make the right choice here.

I hope America does too. Of course it seems like unless Obama is willing to say "fuck it" in his second term and go nuts, we've basically just got two choices between flavors of right political theory.

The U.S isn't the glorious nation it once was and there are many threats such as communism,

What?! Since when is communism a threat? Are you talking about our biggest trade partner (and debt holder) China? The country that funded our last couple foreign adventures?

Russia,

How?

and Iran that are going to tear the U.S apart unless we spend more on the military and expand our military influence even more.

Lord save me from ill-informed uber-right radical morons who just know what "the bubble" tells them to know...

There is no negotiating with terrorists.

That's why we've been killing them. I dare say this President has the best kill ratio when it comes to terrorists of any president in american history. Why do you guys keep forgetting that? Cause it's inconvenient? :)

[RacistBassist]

At 5/29/12 10:07 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: but he just openly admitted that he wants to increase spending. That's the thing with NeoConservatism, eventually you run out of other people's money!

When that happens I don't think he's going to be the kind of guy who will admit he dun goofed though, I think he is going to force Austerity on the middle class (the only people who pay taxes any more). Its brilliant really, if we run out of other peoples money, we can just take more of some one else's!

Wow, it's funny, because with changing a whopping two words this applies to virtually everyone and their supporters in the two major camps

[Gustavos]

"We have two courses we can follow: One is to follow the pathway of Europe. To shrink our military smaller and smaller to pay for our social needs. And they of course rely on the strength of America and they hope for the best,âEU said Romney.

Oof! Oww! And to think I was recently looking for reasons why Europeans don't like us.

The speech has greatly improved Romney's numbers among the veteran vote. What kind of backwards, corrupted veterans want a warmongerer for president? They've seen firsthand how much armed conflict actually amounts too in the end. I thought Romney was just a bad joke that had run on too long, now I can see he's a real threat to our country.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 5/29/12 07:08 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
Wow, it's funny, because with changing a whopping two words this applies to virtually everyone and their supporters in the two major camps

Anyone who calls Republicans out for spending too much either dislikes the democrats too, or hasn't been thinking enough.

and vice versa.

[GameBlade]

I don't believe that the Soviet Union and China were real Communist countries, but aside from that, China abandoned the Communist part. China is a part of the same capitalist society as Europe and the U.S does. And to the TS, Russia, eventhough I believe wasn't communist, fell apart in 1993, remember?

[Warforger]

At 5/30/12 01:59 PM, GameBlade wrote: I don't believe that the Soviet Union and China were real Communist countries,

They were, and they were horrible. Only China could say it did something to improve the conditions of its citizens, but that was because China was in even worse shape 1949 than Russia was in 1917 so anything being done was better than anything.

At 5/30/12 01:59 PM, GameBlade wrote: And to the TS, Russia, eventhough I believe wasn't communist, fell apart in 1993, remember?

? Russia is still around and nothing happened in terms of dissolution 1993 other than perhaps Chechnya. The Soviet Union fell apart 1991 after first Ukraine then Russia seceded. Russia remains as the biggest nation in the world. Maybe you're thinking of Yugoslavia?

[adrshepard]

At 5/29/12 10:07 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.

Yes, American interventionism 60 years ago (in the form of a dozen guys who passed some bribes) caused Iran to develop a secret nuclear program, and we should have just done nothing at all when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Yeah, those stinger missiles and bomb-making training for a handful of people totally caused 9/11.

I wouldn't vote for Romney because he'll "protect" us from China and Russia. The chances of direct conflict with these countries is extremely small. I'm more worried about Obama's plan to decimate our wartime capacity in the hope that special forces operations and global cooperation can solve every problem. Increasing benefits for veterans is nice, but it doesn't make the military any more prepared to face future conflicts.

[redzone]

Ron Paul for president.

Romney is a douche

[BUTANE]

Our military is already a far greater threat to any other military in the world. If a few cuts are made to our military (and they should be) we will still have a vastly superior force than any other nation. The fact that Mitt Romney and the other members of the GOP want to increase military spending just shows that they do not actually have any sort of respect for fiscal conservatism like they claim.

Are you seriously afraid of Communism and Russia? Russia is a trading partner of the US (kinda sketchy at times but thats about it) and the threat of a the "Evil Communists" died with the USSR, if not earlier with McCarthy.

As far a Iran ripping the US apart...that is just ludicrous. I'd accept the argument that they could suck us into a war if they decide to attack Isreal, but they pose no threat whatsoever to mainland US. They have a shit Navy, a weak army and even if they do develop a nuclear weapon, they don't have a rocket capable of reaching the US.

As far as the Nuclear weapon goes, it would almost be a good thing if they built one. Countries with Nukes don't go to war with each other: mutually assured destruction, and in Iran case, only their assured destruction.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 5/30/12 07:32 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 5/29/12 10:07 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: That aside, American interventionism is what caused a lot of these problems to begin with, and its only logical to say that using more military interventionism will just cause even more problems.

Yes, American interventionism 60 years ago (in the form of a dozen guys who passed some bribes) caused Iran to develop a secret nuclear program, and we should have just done nothing at all when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Yeah, those stinger missiles and bomb-making training for a handful of people totally caused 9/11.

that's a nice way to shit on some ones argument, over simplify the scenario.

1. 60 years ago a brutal dictator was installed in Iran by American intervention to replace a democratically elected leader.

2. the resistance was full of extremist Muslims, because you can't just install a brutal dictator and complain that by roll of the dice the revolutionaries who are forced to take him out aren't very happy with you. They didn't want a free society either, but again its roll of the dice, they didn't start off with one either.

3. the nuclear program probably has something to do with the fact that everyone else has a nuke and the biggest military in the world is their sworn enemy.

4. by "a hand full of people", do you mean by any chance, the Taliban? Because that's who it was all given to. Oh yea and Bin Laden, was given CIA training.

5. before 9/11 we were already bombing the middle east into dust. the 3000 innocent people who died in 9/11 is dwarfed by the 100 000 innocent people who died in Iraq.

I wouldn't vote for Romney because he'll "protect" us from China and Russia. The chances of direct conflict with these countries is extremely small. I'm more worried about Obama's plan to decimate our wartime capacity in the hope that special forces operations and global cooperation can solve every problem. Increasing benefits for veterans is nice, but it doesn't make the military any more prepared to face future conflicts.

the cuts to the military were small, and it still has the largest share of the budget. Did you know that it is impossible to balance the budget with out cutting funding to the military even still? Maybe it is time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. One of the reasons the Soviet empire collapsed was their bloated military budget and their over involvement in the middle east. Their military was cheap too, but this military demands over $17 000 to equip just one troop.

[theburningliberal]

At 5/31/12 01:01 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: the cuts to the military were small, and it still has the largest share of the budget. Did you know that it is impossible to balance the budget with out cutting funding to the military even still? Maybe it is time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. One of the reasons the Soviet empire collapsed was their bloated military budget and their over involvement in the middle east. Their military was cheap too, but this military demands over $17 000 to equip just one troop.

A larger and more important reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because of the long-term effects of communist economic policy. Eventually people stop caring, especially when the government is blatantly lying about the total yield and selling off all the food that was grown to make money, without leaving much for the citizens.

More importantly, the days where a large military force is needed on hand are over. Should we still have one? Oh hell yeah, because you never know what threats will develop. But many of the threats we are facing today are ones that require much more tact than the blunt edge of a hammer. Can you imagine the reaction if we had launched a full scale military invasion to capture Osama bin Laden, rather than sending a small team of highly trained soldiers? And as we have seen with Qaddafi, the full might of our military resources is no longer needed in many situations, as we are typically acting in conjunction with other like-minded governments around the world, each with their own military that they can contribute to operations when needed and sanctioned by the world's governing bodies (NATO, UN, EU, Arab League). So the decision that Obama has put into effect with his fiscal policies concerning the defense budget is very well justified - reduce spending by focusing our military to defend the homeland and strike with surgical precision when needed, with enough resources available to support the military when it is needed.

To suddenly reverse course on this would not only limit the ability of the US military to deal with situations as they arise, but would make us seem like we are on a quest for World Domination. We aren't, regardless, but how would the decision be viewed by other countries if we suddenly start spending more money to increase the size of our general military and the weapons they have available to them? This is one of those unique areas where foreign and domestic policy meet, and it is something we need to be careful of to avoid another generation of Osama bin Laden's.

[adrshepard]

At 5/31/12 01:01 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: 1. 60 years ago a brutal dictator was installed in Iran by American intervention to replace a democratically elected leader.

You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two. The only reason the Shah came to power was because he had the support of the military and a substantial portion of the population. And Mossadegh was as much a democratically elected leader as Harry Reid is the democratically elected Senate majority leader. This is conveniently left out by the popular narrative and the Iranians themselves, who've selectively forgotten their history to hide their complicity.

3. the nuclear program probably has something to do with the fact that everyone else has a nuke and the biggest military in the world is their sworn enemy.

And it's working so well for them now, isn't it? The chances of a military conflict with the US (and Israel) have never been lower, thanks to Iran's prudent decision to covertly develop a nuclear program. Combined with their rhetoric about destroying Israel ("wiping off the map" was their own translation), they obviously want nothing more than to live in peace.

4. by "a hand full of people", do you mean by any chance, the Taliban? Because that's who it was all given to. Oh yea and Bin Laden, was given CIA training.

Which has absolutely no relevance to 9/11. It wasn't CIA training and anti-air weapons that brought down the WTC, it was some machetes and a flight school.

5. before 9/11 we were already bombing the middle east into dust. the 3000 innocent people who died in 9/11 is dwarfed by the 100 000 innocent people who died in Iraq.

You are a retard. Not only are you retarded for calling Desert Storm and a few missile strikes during the Clinton years "bombing the Middle East into dust," you are even more retarded for suggesting 9/11 was retribution for "100,000" Iraqi deaths that hadn't even happened yet. That is of course unless you're talking about the Oil For Food Program and have decided to blame the US, as opposed to the UN or god forbid Saddam himself for the suffering it led to.

the cuts to the military were small, and it still has the largest share of the budget. Did you know that it is impossible to balance the budget with out cutting funding to the military even still? Maybe it is time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. One of the reasons the Soviet empire collapsed was their bloated military budget and their over involvement in the middle east. Their military was cheap too, but this military demands over $17 000 to equip just one troop.

Small? Hardly. Military spending on real capability (as opposed to veterans benefits or administration) has been gutted left and right. Most of our air force is based on aircraft designed over 30 years ago. It's only going to get worse once the automatic budget triggers go into effect, because neither party wants to touch entitlements and the Medicare cuts will only affect the supply end (doctors, hospitals, insurers). And it's clear that Obama is perfectly okay with that. He and other democrats have treated deficit reduction as little more than some political game to stick it to the rich.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 5/31/12 08:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two.

-The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[94] Then, in early 1979, U.S.

-According to Brzezinski, CIA financial aid to the insurgents within Afghanistan was approved in July 1979, six months before the Soviet intervention, though after the Soviets were already covertly engaged there. Arms were sent after the formal intervention.

-US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in training, equipping and sometimes leading Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army.

-senior Pentagon official overcame bureaucratic resisistance in 1985âEU"1986 and persuaded President Reagan to provide hundreds of Stinger missiles.

-the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year,

I did NOT have to look hard to find these facts.

The only reason the Shah came to power was because he had the support of the military and a substantial portion of the population. And Mossadegh was as much a democratically elected leader as Harry Reid is the democratically elected Senate majority leader. This is conveniently left out by the popular narrative and the Iranians themselves, who've selectively forgotten their history to hide their complicity.

-the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah

-On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79âEU"12. Aware of Mosaddegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah appointed Mosaddegh to the Premiership.

but why? oh I know!

His administration introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry

You are a retard. Not only are you retarded for calling Desert Storm and a few missile strikes during the Clinton years "bombing the Middle East into dust," you are even more retarded for suggesting 9/11 was retribution for "100,000" Iraqi deaths that hadn't even happened yet. That is of course unless you're talking about the Oil For Food Program and have decided to blame the US, as opposed to the UN or god forbid Saddam himself for the suffering it led to.

I can't take you seriously, because you are full of shit. not only have the 100 000 innocent deaths already happened, but because the food for oil was to fix up the fact that the citizens were only starving because of economic sanctions. As for the death count for the Gulf War here's the estimate range for you.

-NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase, while more than 60,000 civilians have been killed as of April 2007.

-At the other end of the scale, the Lancet Survey estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" to June 2006; and the Opinion Research Business Survey estimated 1,033,000 "deaths as a result of the conflict", to April 2009.

honestly I think the number is closer to the NGO but 3000 vs 60 000 is 20 Iraqi civilians killed for every American civilian killed. There is a video of Osama Bin Ladin, he says something along the lines of "the allies are all mad about the innocent civilians I killed in 9/11, but what about the innocent people killed in Iraq when Americans were bombing us? Nobody even offered their condolences for them." All this just to give the people of Kuat their old dictator back.

your attitude is demoralizing, but hard research is a lot more powerful than a few mean words, it just takes a little more work is all.

[theburningliberal]

At 5/31/12 08:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Small? Hardly. Military spending on real capability (as opposed to veterans benefits or administration) has been gutted left and right. Most of our air force is based on aircraft designed over 30 years ago. It's only going to get worse once the automatic budget triggers go into effect, because neither party wants to touch entitlements and the Medicare cuts will only affect the supply end (doctors, hospitals, insurers). And it's clear that Obama is perfectly okay with that. He and other democrats have treated deficit reduction as little more than some political game to stick it to the rich.

First off, we are still spending money on new aircraft and equipment for our military. The FY2013 budget includes the planned purchase of these for the USAF (FY2012 in parentheses):

24 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (48 in FY 12 OCO funds)
19 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (18)
4 CV-22 Tilt-Rotor aircraft (5)
4 MC-130J Combat Commando special operations aircraft (6)
2 AC-130J gunships (1)
1 HC-130J (3) rescue aircraft

Also, we are upgrading the B-2 Stealth Bomber's onboard systems and updating software on numerous other aircraft, including the F-22A Raptor in the FY2013 budget.

Just because we are cutting programs that are meant to replace ones that still have 30 years of operative life left (like the U-2, which was supposed to be replaced by the Global Hawk) doesn't mean we are 'gutting' the military. We are streamlining the military in an acknowledgment both of the threats we currently face around the world, and the reality of our own budget crisis. Indeed, the FY2013 budget is the first to propose a significant cut to military spending in over a decade.

But to be quite honest, the need for the huge military we have traditionally had (especially during the Cold War) has largely disappeared. Our biggest real threat is Iran / North Korea (give or take) and the economic and social consequences of a budget failure. The Rigell Amendment that passed the House is a direct slap in the face to those of us who worried about a government shutdown last year, as the compromise was supposed to force compromise by making automatic cuts to both entitlement and defense spending. How are we supposed to force compromise if we back out of the automatic cuts that should be required since the Debt Committee was unable to reach such a compromise? Maybe if we let the first round of cuts happen, both sides would be more willing to prevent further cuts by coming to a real compromise that addresses the needs of our budget.

A tangent here - in FY2000 we did have a balanced budget. Then we elected Dubya and it all went to hell in a handbasket, with an unnecessary foreign war and warmongerers in the GOP demanding more tax cuts for wealthy job creators and more defense spending to put more money in the pocket of wealthy job creators. What do you thinking electing another Republican will do, now that we are starting to bring down the annual federal deficit and making headway on getting the budget balanced again? I won't predict economic collapse, but I don't think it will be rainbows and sunshine, either.

[DoctorStrongbad]

At 5/29/12 09:44 AM, Saren wrote: Suck it Obama supporters.

http://rt.com/usa/news/romney-military-power-safe-449/

This is why we MUST elect Romney, he knows the true threats in this world. Unlike the myths of the economy being broken created and spread by Obama and the Democrats.
There is no negotiating with terrorists.

Romney is the right choice for the USA. We need him to defend the USA from terrorists.

[Camarohusky]

At 6/1/12 01:44 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Romney is the right choice for the USA. We need him to defend the USA from terrorists.

Cause Obama's doing a terrible job of that, seeing as there haven't been any large successul terrorist attacks since he started...

[pirateplatypus]

At 5/29/12 06:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Lord save me from ill-informed uber-right radical morons who just know what "the bubble" tells them to know...

Oh my god, I want that on my tomb stone.

[adrshepard]

At 5/31/12 09:00 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two.

-The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[94] Then, in early 1979, U.S.

You already failed. If you read that paragraph it is perfectly clear I'm talking about Iran.

-the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah

Yes, and you know what they did? They bribed some Iranian newspaper editors to print propaganda and encouraged some Iranian dissidents to be more aggressive in their demonstrations. That's it.

His administration introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry

Yeah, his biggest accomplishment is stealing oil refinieries and lands from the British. That's what nationalization is; screwing over private or foreign owners of property or resource and seizing it for yourself.

I can't take you seriously, because you are full of shit. not only have the 100 000 innocent deaths already happened, but because the food for oil was to fix up the fact that the citizens were only starving because of economic sanctions. As for the death count for the Gulf War here's the estimate range for you.

You are unbelievable. You must be doing this deliberately. You say that the 100,000 deaths occured during the Gulf War, before 2001, then talk about what happened in the Iraq War that started in 2003. I think you are doing it deliberately, so screw it.

[Cochises]

At 6/1/12 05:10 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 5/31/12 09:00 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

You must be joking. All the CIA did was fund some propaganda and help rouse a mob or two.

-The United States began training insurgents in, and directing propaganda broadcasts into Afghanistan from Pakistan in 1978.[94] Then, in early 1979, U.S.

You already failed. If you read that paragraph it is perfectly clear I'm talking about Iran.

Yeah and? The CIA infiltrated the democratically, that's a term the U.S. loves to spread, and even kill for, to install a puppet dictator.

-the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah

Yes, and you know what they did? They bribed some Iranian newspaper editors to print propaganda and encouraged some Iranian dissidents to be more aggressive in their demonstrations. That's it.

Really? http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.
pdf All I did was a simple Google search.

His administration introduced a wide range of social and political reforms but is most notable for its nationalization of the Iranian oil industry

Yeah, his biggest accomplishment is stealing oil refinieries and lands from the British. That's what nationalization is; screwing over private or foreign owners of property or resource and seizing it for yourself.

No, nationalization is taking back what you rightfully own, you do realize that the only way those oil industries were owned by private or foreign owners was because they seized it when they had a puppet regime in place.
It's funny how you think Iran stole their national resources, that's hilarious really.

I can't take you seriously, because you are full of shit. not only have the 100 000 innocent deaths already happened, but because the food for oil was to fix up the fact that the citizens were only starving because of economic sanctions. As for the death count for the Gulf War here's the estimate range for you.

You are unbelievable. You must be doing this deliberately. You say that the 100,000 deaths occured during the Gulf War, before 2001, then talk about what happened in the Iraq War that started in 2003. I think you are doing it deliberately, so screw it.

About 3,664 Iraqi civilians killed in the gulf war, still more than 9/11.

Your government also funded Iraqi's Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while funnily enough, also funding Iran through Israel.
I personally love this picture, America's key

[adrshepard]

At 5/31/12 09:18 PM, theburningliberal wrote: 24 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft (48 in FY 12 OCO funds)
19 F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (18)
4 CV-22 Tilt-Rotor aircraft (5)
4 MC-130J Combat Commando special operations aircraft (6)
2 AC-130J gunships (1)
1 HC-130J (3) rescue aircraft

Except for the F-35s those are all special operations or light support aircraft. I don't know where you got that list, and I doubt its inclusive, but I know that the status of the refueling fleet is tenuous, with production projected to barely keep up with scrapping or decomissioning. I also know that the F-35s are being purchased at a snail's pace considering the hundreds of f-16s and f-18s we have that its meant to replace.

Just because we are cutting programs that are meant to replace ones that still have 30 years of operative life left (like the U-2, which was supposed to be replaced by the Global Hawk) doesn't mean we are 'gutting' the military. We are streamlining the military in an acknowledgment both of the threats we currently face around the world,

I know, but just because we face counter-insurgency conflicts now doesn't mean conventional warfare is out of the question, especially for the US with its low tolerance of casualties. I'm not an analyst, I just get the impression that this is the first step in a winding down of US capabilities to the point where we don't take a leading role in world affairs.

At 6/1/12 11:00 PM, Cochises wrote: Yeah and? The CIA infiltrated the democratically, that's a term the U.S. loves to spread, and even kill for, to install a puppet dictator.

It was a tough decision to make. The CIA believed Mossadegh was going to make Iran into the puppet of the Soviet Union. Better that Iran be our puppet than the USSR's.

Really? http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.
pdf All I did was a simple Google search.

Did you read the summary? How did the CIA's actions differ from what I said?

No, nationalization is taking back what you rightfully own, you do realize that the only way those oil industries were owned by private or foreign owners was because they seized it when they had a puppet regime in place.
It's funny how you think Iran stole their national resources, that's hilarious really.

When you contract with a foreign country to invest in your oil production then confiscate their facilities (I was wrong to say lands earlier) when you get fed up with the terms, that's stealing.

About 3,664 Iraqi civilians killed in the gulf war, still more than 9/11.

Not by miuch, and those weren't deliberate.

Your government also funded Iraqi's Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, while funnily enough, also funding Iran through Israel.

The US supported Iraq when it started looking as if Iran would be victorious--not an ideal outcome--not to start the war in the first place.
Sending arms to certain parties in Iran was intended to secure the release of American hostages. A muddled policy when viewed together, but the weapons were not enough for Iran to break the stalemate with Iraq.

[theburningliberal]

At 6/2/12 10:53 AM, adrshepard wrote: Except for the F-35s those are all special operations or light support aircraft. I don't know where you got that list, and I doubt its inclusive, but I know that the status of the refueling fleet is tenuous, with production projected to barely keep up with scrapping or decomissioning. I also know that the F-35s are being purchased at a snail's pace considering the hundreds of f-16s and f-18s we have that its meant to replace.

As far as the F-35's go, keep in mind that, number one, those aircraft are expensive. Really expensive. Almost prohibitively so, to the point where Sen. McCain proposed an amendment to a bill in June that would have forced Lockheed Martin to bear the cost of future overrun's related to the development of the F-35's. Even Senator McCain agrees that projects like the F-35, given its history, are threatening other programs in the defense budget:

If we fail to act now, continuing cost overruns on the F-35 of the kind we have experienced over the last 10 years will siphon off precious resources and put at risk every other major Defense procurement program

Regardless, we have to balance the need for fiscal common sense against what we want to spend the money on. An F-35 project is nice and we do need to cycle out our older aircraft, but we need to do it in a way that makes fiscal sense. Replacing 2,000 planes at once is a pipe dream - not only is it fiscally impossible on our end, it would exceed the production capacity of Lockheed Martin to fill the order, depending on the deadline. Therefore, it must be done on a basis that allows us to properly collect revenue over time and gives the builder time to fill the orders we are giving them.

I know, but just because we face counter-insurgency conflicts now doesn't mean conventional warfare is out of the question, especially for the US with its low tolerance of casualties. I'm not an analyst, I just get the impression that this is the first step in a winding down of US capabilities to the point where we don't take a leading role in world affairs.

Our military has been unrivaled for almost 50 years. The Soviets were close, but the USSR is no longer around and much of the Soviet Army has been dismantled. To say that we need to continually beef up our military's overall size at this point is just ridiculous. No one is advocating a complete dismantling of our military, so don't make it seem like we are. What we are advocating is a responsible reduction in overall size, enough to keep our military strong, but also enough to reduce the fiscal burden of operating the Armed Forces, and enough to not only defend against traditional threats, but with a focus on the nature of the dangers we are typically facing today. It can be done without spending the $700 and $800 billion a year that we have been spending over the last decade - (FY2013 budget - $678b IIRC)

Also, you apparently conceded everything else I wrote. Just sayin.

[Organguy41]

I grew up in Wisconsin. I have seen the hypocracy of the Republican Party. They tout themselves as cost cutters but all they do is cut funding for social programs in order to appease certain entities. In Wisconsin, it's the Milwaukee Metro. In Illinois, the Democrats pull the same shit in Chicago. It will never change and the best thing one can do is find a way to settle in a European country. Sure, socialism sucks and a European style society sucks as well, but eventually, America will kill itself if the current political environment continues.

In short, it will not matter who the president is because congress is at a gridlock. If it's not the Republicans filibustering, it's the Democrats. It does not matter.

[adrshepard]

At 6/2/12 03:28 PM, theburningliberal wrote: As far as the F-35's go, keep in mind that, number one, those aircraft are expensive.

Yeah, I know, now that I've looked into it more. A real mess all the way around.

Our military has been unrivaled for almost 50 years. The Soviets were close, but the USSR is no longer around and much of the Soviet Army has been dismantled. To say that we need to continually beef up our military's overall size at this point is just ridiculous.

I don't think anyone's saying we need an increase in actual soldiers so much as continued investment in capabilities.

What we are advocating is a responsible reduction in overall size, enough to keep our military strong, but also enough to reduce the fiscal burden of operating the Armed Forces, and enough to not only defend against traditional threats

That's where the problem is. Iraq and Afghanistan were not traditional threats, yet they needed (and still do need) traditional means of support. I remember Gates talking about how anyone who wants to repeat the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan should get his head examined. He's right, except we might not always have a choice. The future US military won't be able to support another Iraq or Afghanistan, especially after the latest reduction in ground troops.

Also, you apparently conceded everything else I wrote. Just sayin.

No, I just chose not to talk about it. You yourself said the one paragraph was a tangent, and I don't feel like getting into some argument about which party doesn't compromise enough.
And even if I did concede everything, you should be gracious because I could have very easily tried to distract you with other points, or just repeated myself as though you didn't write anything in response, both things that some people around here do.

[Sense-Offender]

At 6/1/12 01:44 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Romney is the right choice for the USA. We need him to defend the USA from terrorists.

remember Bin Laden? Who was president when he was killed? yeah...

[Mfan]

the terrorist left will do their damnedest to reelect Obama , so he can continue to make our nation weaker , more socialist

my expectations of this website as a liberal stronghold have not failed me

if this site was solely responsible for electing the next potus , we would live in a red Russian puppet state , the way the terrorist left want it

[Warforger]

At 5/31/12 08:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: And it's working so well for them now, isn't it? The chances of a military conflict with the US (and Israel) have never been lower, thanks to Iran's prudent decision to covertly develop a nuclear program. Combined with their rhetoric about destroying Israel ("wiping off the map" was their own translation), they obviously want nothing more than to live in peace.

Um, that was mistranslation by one member of the government who quickly apologized for it, the actual speech would translate more to "We want to get rid of the regime in Israel". Also nuclear capability =/= nuclear weapons.

Which has absolutely no relevance to 9/11. It wasn't CIA training and anti-air weapons that brought down the WTC, it was some machetes and a flight school.

It was box cutters, not machetes. But I do agree though, 9/11 wasn't as much their use of their CIA training as much as it was them taking advantage of shitty airport regulations.

At 5/31/12 08:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: You are a retard. Not only are you retarded for calling Desert Storm and a few missile strikes during the Clinton years "bombing the Middle East into dust," you are even more retarded for suggesting 9/11 was retribution for "100,000" Iraqi deaths that hadn't even happened yet. That is of course unless you're talking about the Oil For Food Program and have decided to blame the US, as opposed to the UN or god forbid Saddam himself for the suffering it led to.

Most nations in the ME would point to US support of Israel, and while I don't want to go into the inevitably long and drawn out discussion on Israel, Israel did in fact bomb many civilians to dust, especially in Lebanon (like for example in trying to kill Yasar Arafat they would destroy whole buildings they think he would be in inevitably killing a couple civilians). The fact that they haven't been defeated in a war is due to the supply of Western arms and munitions (in the 1973 war Syria Jordan and Iraq made Israel waste much of its munitions, prompting an emergency call to America for munitions as Egypt advanced, they got those munitions and their counter-offensive was successful).

Small? Hardly. Military spending on real capability (as opposed to veterans benefits or administration) has been gutted left and right. Most of our air force is based on aircraft designed over 30 years ago. It's only going to get worse once the automatic budget triggers go into effect, because neither party wants to touch entitlements and the Medicare cuts will only affect the supply end (doctors, hospitals, insurers). And it's clear that Obama is perfectly okay with that. He and other democrats have treated deficit reduction as little more than some political game to stick it to the rich.

The only problem I have is why don't either parties act like it's the 90's again and come together to do these big cuts like they did under Clinton? I mean it was mostly the same situation then, the main difference I'd assume was the economy.