In response to:

Is America Ensnared in an Endless War?

goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 10:47 AM
Politicians use fear to convince us they need more power. It's the one sure-fire means of manipulating a voting majority to relinquish our freedoms -- one small piece at a time -- in the name of security (how much security can a bankrupt govt provide?). American taxpayers have been paying the defense bills for much of the world for 70 years now, while Europe has lavished their citizens with extravagant state-funded welfare. We've indebted our grandchildren, sent our young men to perish for no lasting benefit, and created more enemies for ourselves in the process. It's time for a profound change in our foreign policy, and a dramatic reduction in the role of the state in our lives at home. Rand Paul has the right message.
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 10:56 AM
But these people will not listen. They will say, as they did with Ron Paul, that Rand is right on domestic policy, but we absolutely MUST continue to police the world. The fact that it is destroying the country doesn't matter to these people. They want blood.
goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:06 AM
You're probably right, unfortunately. And Paul has little chance of getting the nomination because of that. But I believe that the younger R's might be more open to persuasion. If you can highlight for the young D's enough of the hypocrisy in their own party's approach to foreign policy, and combine that with some R's and independents, you can maybe make a difference in our policies in the future.
traitorbill Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:11 AM
Why not reduce the obligations which the federal government wrongly assumed, and transfer the savings to the military? At least you know that, when the danger subsides, the military will be the first thing to be cut to the bone. You cannot say that about government welfare spending. For a limited government in the future, expand the military now.
Ryan_M Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:17 AM
I have a better idea. Why not give the money back to the people who made it in the first place?
goatlockerloungelizard Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:19 AM
I want govt spending and intervention substantially reduced in domestic and military affairs.

I spent 20 years in the Navy. My wife served for 28, and now works for CENTCOM as a civilian contractor. The amount of waste in military spending is staggering. And not only that, but everything we do militarily has unintended consequences that are often worse than the evil we are attempting to destroy - as Pat highlights twice a week.

After 9-11, we should have wreaked havoc on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan for a year, and then left with a message: Mess with us again, and we'll return for more of the same.Leave us be, and we will do likewise. No nation-building. No crusading for democracy.
Ryan_M Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:22 AM
That is exactly what should have been done and Perle and company with their PNAC garbage should have been told to stuff it.
Corbett_ Wrote: Feb 08, 2013 11:32 AM

What makes you think that the government will be willing to cut defense spending? Hell, we're still defending the Germans from the Soviets & the USSR has been gone for decades.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

So said Richard Nixon in his interviews with David Frost. Nixon was talking about wiretaps and surreptitious entries to protect lives and safeguard national security in a violent and anarchic war decade.

The Nixon haters pronounced themselves morally sickened.

Fast forward to our new century. For, since 9/11, we have heard rather more extravagant claims by American presidents.

Under George W. Bush, it was presidential authority to waterboard, torture, rendition and hold enemy aliens in indefinite detention at Guantanamo.

Under Barack Obama, we don't have a Nixon "enemies list"...