Which Republican Candidate and Why
now, i'm not saying we need to keep ALL of the bases overseas. for example, there really is no need for over 200 bases in germany. during the bush years, rumsfeld recommended closing around 25% of our overseas bases. i think something like this would be appropriate, however i maintain that we should not close all of them. also, keep in mind that some of these bases are not full fledged military bases. outposts, research stations, small fobs are all counted as bases.
HTX, does Jake's idea fall under black or white? No matter which you respond, I'm inclined to disagree.
EDIT- jake i did misquote, my bad. It's not his quote, it's an old African saying.
Last edited by 3.4camaro; May 14, 2012 at 04:11 PM.
Finally, someone from the other side engages in legitimate discussion. I could totally get behind a reduction in FOBs, and have those troops do their training either at a larger, consolidated base or at one of ours in the US.
HTX, does Jake's idea fall under black or white? No matter which you respond, I'm inclined to disagree.
HTX, does Jake's idea fall under black or white? No matter which you respond, I'm inclined to disagree.
Last edited by HTX; May 14, 2012 at 05:45 PM.
Slow LSX, stop being a bad parent. We need to encourage this kid to make sound arguments, instead of using phrases like "obama loving hippy ******," "dumb ******* retard," and "minority immigrant."
A shameful, ignorant display by a soldier. I feel bad for you HTX. People who resort to useless, inflammatory speech usually do so out of frustration and inability to articulate what they want to say. Again I say, try to grow up.
A shameful, ignorant display by a soldier. I feel bad for you HTX. People who resort to useless, inflammatory speech usually do so out of frustration and inability to articulate what they want to say. Again I say, try to grow up.
Slow LSX, stop being a bad parent. We need to encourage this kid to make sound arguments, instead of using phrases like "obama loving hippy ******," "dumb ******* retard," and "minority immigrant."
A shameful, ignorant display by a soldier. I feel bad for you HTX. People who resort to useless, inflammatory speech usually do so out of frustration and inability to articulate what they want to say. Again I say, try to grow up.
A shameful, ignorant display by a soldier. I feel bad for you HTX. People who resort to useless, inflammatory speech usually do so out of frustration and inability to articulate what they want to say. Again I say, try to grow up.
You: we dont need fobs. Fobs make people hate us.
Me: fobs are an absolute necessity to protect ourselves and our allies.
You: nu uh!
Great aurgument buddy.
you're just repeating yourself. have you even read the constitution? there is nothing in it about bases, no provisions requiring an attack to be made on american soil. it says congress can raise and support armies, and that the president is the commander in chief. it says absolutely nothing about where the armies are to be kept.
closing bases overseas will not make us safer. there is no current threat of invasion. if anything, having bases abroad helps us counter threats before they blow up. and it is much cheaper to keep some bases in europe and asia to keep the russians and chinese in check than to pull back and have to go back in when they get aggressive. sooner or later, it will happen.
now, i'm not saying we need to keep ALL of the bases overseas. for example, there really is no need for over 200 bases in germany. during the bush years, rumsfeld recommended closing around 25% of our overseas bases. i think something like this would be appropriate, however i maintain that we should not close all of them. also, keep in mind that some of these bases are not full fledged military bases. outposts, research stations, small fobs are all counted as bases.
closing bases overseas will not make us safer. there is no current threat of invasion. if anything, having bases abroad helps us counter threats before they blow up. and it is much cheaper to keep some bases in europe and asia to keep the russians and chinese in check than to pull back and have to go back in when they get aggressive. sooner or later, it will happen.
now, i'm not saying we need to keep ALL of the bases overseas. for example, there really is no need for over 200 bases in germany. during the bush years, rumsfeld recommended closing around 25% of our overseas bases. i think something like this would be appropriate, however i maintain that we should not close all of them. also, keep in mind that some of these bases are not full fledged military bases. outposts, research stations, small fobs are all counted as bases.
Maintaining bases thousands of miles from home does not keep us safe at home outside of war. If we're at war, then yes, establish bases to make the logistics of engaging in the war favorable for us. All of your arguments are predicated on the establishment, neo-con Republican paradigm. I'm telling you it's wrong. It's the industrial military complex talking. Who gives a damn if Jackass-istan wants to blow themselves up and kill each other. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in affairs across the world militarily outside of a declaration of war. There is a damn good reason for this, and looking at the state of the U.S. empire today you can see why. The federal government does plenty of R&D at home, as it should.
If that's not good enough for you, we're broke! We cannot afford to be sending billions of dollars overseas, subsidizing the defense of other nations. It's utterly foolish. Those nations can be responsible for their own defense and dealing with their own geo-political affairs, not us.
you mean like how thomas jefferson sent troops to tripoli without a formal declaration of war to protect american trade interests?
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo Should I take a picture of my pocket Constitution? I keep repeating myself because you're still missing the point. Having bases overseas outside of a congressional declaration of war is not constitutional. Keep in mind that my use of the world "constitutional" does not imply that it's explicitly written in the Constitution.
Maintaining bases thousands of miles from home does not keep us safe at home outside of war. If we're at war, then yes, establish bases to make the logistics of engaging in the war favorable for us. All of your arguments are predicated on the establishment, neo-con Republican paradigm. I'm telling you it's wrong. It's the industrial military complex talking. Who gives a damn if Jackass-istan wants to blow themselves up and kill each other. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in affairs across the world militarily outside of a declaration of war. There is a damn good reason for this, and looking at the state of the U.S. empire today you can see why. The federal government does plenty of R&D at home, as it should.
If that's not good enough for you, we're broke! We cannot afford to be sending billions of dollars overseas, subsidizing the defense of other nations. It's utterly foolish. Those nations can be responsible for their own defense and dealing with their own geo-political affairs, not us.
Maintaining bases thousands of miles from home does not keep us safe at home outside of war. If we're at war, then yes, establish bases to make the logistics of engaging in the war favorable for us. All of your arguments are predicated on the establishment, neo-con Republican paradigm. I'm telling you it's wrong. It's the industrial military complex talking. Who gives a damn if Jackass-istan wants to blow themselves up and kill each other. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to intervene in affairs across the world militarily outside of a declaration of war. There is a damn good reason for this, and looking at the state of the U.S. empire today you can see why. The federal government does plenty of R&D at home, as it should.
If that's not good enough for you, we're broke! We cannot afford to be sending billions of dollars overseas, subsidizing the defense of other nations. It's utterly foolish. Those nations can be responsible for their own defense and dealing with their own geo-political affairs, not us.
