...stop the madness.
Add a comment above
Top Opinion
-
lurx: the soda jerk 2012/08/07 02:17:55
A decade after Romney and the Republicans take control, no one in the 99% will want to fight for this country. So, why buy weapons for a cause that no one will fight for?
When we start to make significant cuts to our defense policy, people will die. That is an undeniable fact. We patrol, protect and secure many countries and borders throughout the world, and it will take time for other countries to pick up their own slack. Mean while, terrorists, murders and criminals will move through, wars will start, and people will die. Are you willing to make that cut? These aren't scare tactics, these are legitimate concerns that need to be understood going into it. I'm fine with this decision, since the longer we wait, the worse it will get. But most people aren't.
"Now, I'm all for cutting the military (though not using that money for anything other than to eliminate the property tax all together), but we have to understand why we spend as much as we do."
As in, I support cutting the military, but I believe we have to recognize what WILL happen when we do, otherwise we will bring it right back when things get bad for a few years. Nothing suddenly gets better overnight.
"We have made a lot of military blunders in the past (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, the Spanish American war.), but we currently hold the positions of world peace keeper, protector of the western hemisphere, and the only significant military force in Nato."
It was a statement of fact, not of preference. Nowhere in there did I say that we should be the peace keepers. My next five sentences pointed out the outcome of military cuts for the short term. To believe that things will instantly get better because of it is naive at best, idiotic at worst. The animosity we have accumulated from our foreign occupations won't suddenly dry up, Al Qaeda won't suddenly stop hating us for our constant interference in their affairs. They will still be angry. When they fail to attack us because we are using our much smaller military budget for the sole purpose of national defense instead of world peace keeping, They will attack other.
After about 10-20 years, things will calm down considerably. It will be a long term benefit, but telling people it will suddenly get better the moment we pull out is like saying that everything is going to get better the moment we f...
"We have made a lot of military blunders in the past (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, the Spanish American war.), but we currently hold the positions of world peace keeper, protector of the western hemisphere, and the only significant military force in Nato."
It was a statement of fact, not of preference. Nowhere in there did I say that we should be the peace keepers. My next five sentences pointed out the outcome of military cuts for the short term. To believe that things will instantly get better because of it is naive at best, idiotic at worst. The animosity we have accumulated from our foreign occupations won't suddenly dry up, Al Qaeda won't suddenly stop hating us for our constant interference in their affairs. They will still be angry. When they fail to attack us because we are using our much smaller military budget for the sole purpose of national defense instead of world peace keeping, They will attack other.
After about 10-20 years, things will calm down considerably. It will be a long term benefit, but telling people it will suddenly get better the moment we pull out is like saying that everything is going to get better the moment we figure out a more sustainable fuel source.
Please do not make assumptions. It really just causes you to piss off people who agree with you on the course of action, if not the immediate outcome.
...stop the madness.