En lements? We NEED Our Steenkin En lements (says 1000 Generals, Admirals)

[boutons_deux]

amazing fantasy!

"countries by protecting them"

which countries?

protecting them from what? SPECIFICALLY WHAT?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Defense=In the Cons ution
Social Security= Not
Medicaid= Not
Medicare= Not

I don't dispute this, and it ain't like I'm one of those people who thinks the US should disband its standing army completely and have a volunteer militi. Those people are re ed, it's clear the US needs a standing army and a strong one for that matter. It doesn't however need to have 600+ overseas bases in idk how many different countries. We don't need to be spending almost as much as every other country combined on defense.

If defense cuts only hit the people at the bottom that doesn't mean we shouldn't have defense cuts, it means the president needs to intervene and make sure that changes. I see your point there tho, because the chances of Obama actually doing anything to change the status quo there are slim to none.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I like the part in the cons ution that says we have to subsidize Europe's social democracies with all our military spending and overseas bases.

Europe's freedom ain't free

[LnGrrrR]

I agree with you, but wouldn't you rather it be us that is the "alpha country?"

Even if we spent billions less on military spending we would still be the alpha country. We would just be slightly less alpha. Don't you agree that other countries should take up the slack of defending themselves? It's the same logic you use saying that people on welfare have no motivation to work, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Even if we spent billions less on military spending we would still be the alpha country. We would just be slightly less alpha. Don't you agree that other countries should take up the slack of defending themselves? It's the same logic you use saying that people on welfare have no motivation to work, right?

I agree we have places we can make serious cuts. The problem is, the waste in in congressional districts where the in bent keeps buying votes.

[spursncowboys]

I don't dispute this, and it ain't like I'm one of those people who thinks the US should disband its standing army completely and have a volunteer militi. Those people are re ed, it's clear the US needs a standing army and a strong one for that matter. It doesn't however need to have 600+ overseas bases in idk how many different countries. We don't need to be spending almost as much as every other country combined on defense.

If defense cuts only hit the people at the bottom that doesn't mean we shouldn't have defense cuts, it means the president needs to intervene and make sure that changes. I see your point there tho, because the chances of Obama actually doing anything to change the status quo there are slim to none.

So you are saying stop policing the world tomorrow? Or ASAP? Are you worried about the power vaccuum that that will create?

For instance, if our Navy is not patrolling every major world waterway, another one will. If "free" movement for trade is stopped, what then?

[spursncowboys]

Even if we spent billions less on military spending we would still be the alpha country. We would just be slightly less alpha. Don't you agree that other countries should take up the slack of defending themselves? It's the same logic you use saying that people on welfare have no motivation to work, right?

I think, we could still maintain our foreign policy. Our only problem is trying to nation-build. Nine years ago, we could have pulled all the ground forces out and maintained the Naval Aircraft carriers.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you are saying stop policing the world tomorrow? Or ASAP? Are you worried about the power vaccuum that that will create?

For instance, if our Navy is not patrolling every major world waterway, another one will. If "free" movement for trade is stopped, what then?

Now you're coming up with strawman arguments and there's no point in addressing them.

[ElNono]

For instance, if our Navy is not patrolling every major world waterway, another one will. If "free" movement for trade is stopped, what then?

Send a drone and show them who's boss. We don't need a base everywhere, period.

[boutons_deux]

"If "free" movement for trade is stopped"

which country has the naval power to stop ocean shipping?

[TDMVPDPOY]

not paying these clowns, they all go into the private sector to the highest bidder...

[baseline bum]

SnC brought up a good point: we get to subsidize other nations' exports with our woldwide navy.

[spursncowboys]

Now you're coming up with strawman arguments and there's no point in addressing them.

I really wasn't. It's a real question. There is no one in the world saying that America giving up our global power, would lead to a power vaccuum. I was just trying to understand a general time frame. Like are you say we pull out month by month, year by year, decade by decade?

[spursncowboys]

Send a drone and show them who's boss. We don't need a base everywhere, period.

As of right now, publicly we don't have drones that can fly very far (gas), so we need somewhere to launch and land.

[ElNono]

As of right now, publicly we don't have drones that can fly very far (gas), so we need somewhere to launch and land.

We have a drone base in the ing Seyc es... that's far enough.

[Wild Cobra]

We have a drone base in the ing Seyc es... that's far enough.

Nice strategic location.

[ElNono]

Nice strategic location.

Strategic for what? Keep playing world police?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I really wasn't. It's a real question. There is no one in the world saying that America giving up our global power, would lead to a power vaccuum. I was just trying to understand a general time frame. Like are you say we pull out month by month, year by year, decade by decade?

I think we can start with some obvious cutbacks. As a specific example, troops stationed in Germany and Japan. They've been there since WWII and I think it's safe to say we don't have to worry about Germany and Japan forming an axis of powers again. I use those two as a specific example because it puts us at an economic disadvantage to be subsidizing two economies we're in compe ion with. It puts our economy at a compe ive disadvantage to be subsidizing the defense of other modern world powers.

As far as the power vacuum, I don't see it being a major issue. As I said, we still should have one of the strongest militaries in the world, just not the excessively strong military that accounts for 45% of the world's total defense spending. We could still keep a naval presence where our key trade routes are and we'd still have the power to turn most countries into a parking lot if they took military cutbacks as an invitation to start ing with us.