1 - 10 Next
K Street was a Republican wealth redistribution scheme.
As a start, I'd be happy to just close our 20+ military bases in the UK. We have enough 'power projection platforms' (as NEO-CONS like to call them) already, throughout the rest of Europe. I mean, who are we protecting the UK from? Mighty Iceland to the north? The dour Irish to the west? The pugnacious Norwegians to the east? The wine-sipping French to the south? Too many goodly Americans still think there is an East and West Germany!
As a start, I'd be happy to just close our 20+ military bases in the UK. We have enough 'power projection platforms' (as NEO-CONS like to call them) already, throughout the rest of Europe. I mean, who are we protecting the UK from? Mighty Iceland to the north? The dour Irish to the west? The pugnacious Norwegians to the east? The wine-sipping French to the south? Too many goodly Americans still think there is an East and West Germany!
As a start, I'd be happy to just close our 20+ military bases in the UK. We have enough 'power projection platforms' (as NEO-CONS like to call them) already, throughout the rest of Europe. I mean, who are we protecting the UK from? Mighty Iceland to the north? The dour Irish to the west? The pugnacious Norwegians to the east? The wine-sipping French to the south? Too many goodly Americans still think there is an East and West Germany!
There are 20 or more American military bases in the United Kingdom. Just how many US military bases do we need in the UK? Who are we protecting the UK from? Is it Ireland to the west, is it Iceland from the north, how about pugnacious France to the south or mighty Norway to the east? Why do we still need so many military bases there some 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall? I, for one, am tired of sending my hard-earned tax dollars to defend them against no one. Isn't this a form of foreign aid? This foreign aid to the UK allows them to have six weeks vacation and a free national health care plan.
Republicans, read up on neo-mercantilism! It defines the battlefront of the now and future. Republicans think the threat stems from a Chinese carrier task force appearing out of the fog of the western Pacific, smashing Pearl Harbor, proceeding through the Panama Canal (that Jimmy Carter 'gave away') and invading Texas. That's not the national security threat at all. These Republicans miss the battlefield completely. The battlefield is economic and technological and the Republican party is losing this battle for America. Just how much money have we spent on the Republican party's long term social engineering project in Iraq and their nation building project in Afghanistan? Republicans still think war is FREE.
Republicans, read up on neo-mercantilism! It defines the battlefront of the now and future. Republicans think the threat stems from a Chinese carrier task force appearing out of the fog of the western Pacific, smashing Pearl Harbor, proceeding through the Panama Canal (that Jimmy Carter 'gave away') and invading Texas. That's not the national security threat at all. These Republicans miss the battlefield completely. The battlefield is economic and technological and the Republican party is losing this battle for America. Just how much money have we spent on the Republican party's long term social engineering project in Iraq and their nation building project in Afghanistan? Republicans still think war is FREE.
Republicans, read up on neo-mercantilism! It defines the battlefront of the now and future. Republicans think the threat stems from a Chinese carrier task force appearing out of the fog of the western Pacific, smashing Pearl Harbor, proceeding through the Panama Canal (that Jimmy Carter 'gave away') and invading Texas. That's not the national security threat at all. These Republicans miss the battlefield completely. The battlefield is economic and technological and the Republican party is losing this battle for America. Just how much money have we spent on the Republican party's long term social engineering project in Iraq and their nation building project in Afghanistan? Republicans still think war is FREE.
Many Neo-Con Republicans suppress the real cost that America spends for its defense and national security needs. The number, approved by the Republican party, is that the U.S. spends only 5% of GDP for defense. This number represents only the budget for the Department of Defense. Other departments in the US government also spend money for defense and national security. Let's add the cost of the War on Terror. The war in Iraq cost was $120 billion a year and the war in Afghanistan now costs $80 billion a year. All added up, the U.S.A. spent double or about 10% of GDP on defense. Can't we conservatives agree that honest assessments are needed to plan for the future?
these are national security costs, the Veterans Administration spent $100 billion last year. the Department of Energy, annually, spends $20 billion on nuclear weapons. Other departments responsible for national security are the National Security Agency ($30 billion), the CIA ($40) and one could even include the Coast Guard ($8 billion). These are all yearly costs. I'm tired of Neo-Cons saying that the National Security Agency has nothing to do with national security.
1 - 10 Next