Nope, you are totally wrong. This would be the end of wasting money on other people's problems.
ie: ISRAEL, I wouldn't give two cents a year if I knew that's what it took to keep Israel safe. Let them deal with it, wtf do I care?
Nope, you are totally wrong. This would be the end of wasting money on other people's problems.
ie: ISRAEL, I wouldn't give two cents a year if I knew that's what it took to keep Israel safe. Let them deal with it, wtf do I care?
You do understand that isolationism means more than just troop withdrawal, right?
No, most people can't grasp that at all, because the talking heads they listen to told them it was bad.
This is why we will end up with four more years of some idiot.
Do you see any countries in the middle east which pose a threat to the safety and security of the United States?
Umm, not necessarily. We currently pay for the national security of many countries. Quite a few of those are perfectly capable of paying for their own defense. Now in some of those cases, it might be worth what we're paying to keep them there, depending on what we get out of the deal. But in many cases, it's simply a bloated bureaucracy that's become entrenched that keeps us there. In those cases, the countries in question should be given the choice of paying for our services at a rate that would allow us to perhaps turn a profit, but at least break even. Most of them would say hit the road, knowing that we'd come running back to save them should it become necessary.
Any treaties involved should be renegotiated, particularly if they're decades old.
Honestly? No. Take a close look at every one of them. Now remove any emotional attachments from your assessment of them. Do any of them have long haul troop transport capability of any significance? Do any of them even remotely have ICBM capability? Do any of them have a geographic location that affords strike capability against the United States, it's territories or protectorates? Have any of them since Saddam's Iraq expressed or acted upon territorial expansionism that would even disrupt the financial interests of the United States (which in and of itself would not be sufficient justification to garrison troops in the region)?
An honest assessment would say no to all of those questions. So why would any of those countries be deemed a threat to the safety and security of the United States?
We are 15 trillion dollars in debt. We could save trillions of dollars by realigning and reallocating our defense budget priorities. The next time you wring your hands over how dangerous a middle east country is to the safety and security of the United States, take a look at this and consider which one is more dangerous.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
You don't think we need an on-the-ground military presence in South Korea to dissuade the unstable North Koreans from attacking?
In general it is better to prevent wars than fight them. Prevention is best accomplished through strength and an important aspect of strength is having significant military resources in a region.
Your idea of forcing the host country to pay a reasonable rate for our military presence makes possible sense. But my understanding is that Ron Paul flatly wants to bring them all home.
Honestly? No. Take a close look at every one of them. Now remove any emotional attachments from your assessment of them. Do any of them have long haul troop transport capability of any significance? Do any of them even remotely have ICBM capability? Do any of them have a geographic location that affords strike capability against the United States, it's territories or protectorates? Have any of them since Saddam's Iraq expressed or acted upon territorial expansionism that would even disrupt the financial interests of the United States (which in and of itself would not be sufficient justification to garrison troops in the region)?
An honest assessment would say no to all of those questions. So why would any of those countries be deemed a threat to the safety and security of the United States?
We are 15 trillion dollars in debt. We could save trillions of dollars by realigning and reallocating our defense budget priorities. The next time you wring your hands over how dangerous a middle east country is to the safety and security of the United States, take a look at this and consider which one is more dangerous.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
You don't think the Iranians will give nukes to terrorists? It would be fairly easy to slip them into land-sea cargo container ships to get them here. Ahmadinejad is unstable by most reports.
Another scenario - what about Iranian use of nukes to destroy major oil fields in the region? Or their closing the Straights of Hormuz to oil transport?
The question of who pays is very important given the poor state of our economy. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul is only posturing about bringing our forces home in order to scare our allies into paying a fair amount?
All those stars are US bases
Ever wonder why so many Middle Eastern countries dislike us?
I don't think he's posturing, but if the net result is an overall draw down and possibly some remuneration from the remaining countries, it would definitely benefit our economy.
You paint an intriguing picture. Military logistics and strategies are way beyond me. My opinions are based on what I assume to be correct facts put forth by reliable sources. Perhaps my sources are just pawns of the system and overseas bases exist only because of bureaucratic inertia and malfeasance and most of us are living in the Matrix. How to tell what is reality? I'd love to see Ron Paul debate these points in depth. My gut tells me that we are not spending these enormous amounts of resources without legitimate national defense reasons for doing so.
Ever hear of the Military Industrial complex?
Eisenhower foresaw all of this.
Eisenhower foresaw all of this.
Similar threads
