Which Republican Candidate and Why

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-14-2012, 04:02 PM
  #141  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
3.4camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Jake_the_Snake

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.
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.

EDIT- jake i did misquote, my bad. It's not his quote, it's an old African saying.

Last edited by 3.4camaro; 05-14-2012 at 04:11 PM.
Old 05-14-2012, 04:08 PM
  #142  
HTX
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
HTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by 3.4camaro
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.
No sir. You were speaking of all fobs. I stand by my statements.

Last edited by HTX; 05-14-2012 at 05:45 PM.
Old 05-14-2012, 06:18 PM
  #143  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
3.4camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

It's a stupid statement to say that there are only two options on foreign policy.
Old 05-14-2012, 06:34 PM
  #144  
HTX
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
HTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

That is the statement that you , shackle, and dumb ******* retard were making. not me.
Old 05-14-2012, 07:17 PM
  #145  
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
3.4camaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Galveston, TX
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

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.
Old 05-14-2012, 07:28 PM
  #146  
HTX
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
HTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by 3.4camaro
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.
You should pay more attention to lsx's posts and you'll see where my comments are coming from. As far as this aurgument has gone...

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.
Old 05-14-2012, 10:18 PM
  #147  
TECH Addict
iTrader: (12)
 
Shackleford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Jake_the_Snake
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.
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.
Old 05-14-2012, 10:40 PM
  #148  
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
 
Jake_the_Snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Clarksville, TN
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Shackleford

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.
you mean like how thomas jefferson sent troops to tripoli without a formal declaration of war to protect american trade interests?
Old 05-14-2012, 10:46 PM
  #149  
HTX
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
HTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Shackleford
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.
Do you nind backing up your statements on the military's limitations? I did some reading... got bored, and found nothing to hint that fobs are not permitted. I did however, in a history book, read how every single founding father violated their own rules... but whatever




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM.