EnviroLink Forum

Right, and he included going to war against Hilter as one of the "police" actions we should have avoided. If it had not been for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, I imagine he would have also included the war with Japan. A strong national defense does not do much when it eliminates our allies and sets us up to have the rest of the world align against us, but then again he has only recently started to try to act rational.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Oh, come on John Wayne Stollings! One can support their allies without stationing an armada of storm troopers within their countries! How many military bases does China or Russia have outside of their own countries? No, only Team America, World Police, flexes their military might over land, sea, and air in every continent on the globe! When exactly did the world elect us to be their over seers? And who do we send the invoices too?

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Really? Only the US? Russia has bases outside of their borders as did the former USSR. Remember that little thing in Cuba where Soviet troops were installing nuclear missiles a few years back? China has negoiated for a naval base in the Indian Ocean too.

I noticed no comment on the whole war with Hitler not being any of our business. How exactly would that have been supporting our allies?



About the time of WWII I believe.



We send them to many countries. We export a lot of weaponry as a result.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Is that really the best you can do John Wayne? Compare the russian nuclear missile situation and a chinese naval station in the indian ocean to between 700 and 800 US military installations in over 60 countries???? Pretty weak Wayne.



Wow, WWII, that was a big one wasn't it? Can you tell me of any immediate threats of that stature that we should be worried about? Yeah, N Korea versus S Korea. You don't think South Korea can defend itself without our military bases and personnel being there? Oh, and Iran versus Israel. You don't think Israel can defend itself? How many nuclear missiles do they have now? Why do we need bases all over Europe? Is Germany going to rise again ya think?

The main country I see that has been an aggressor and invading countries uninvited is the United States. Do you think we needed to invade Iraq? I'm talking about the second time as the first time they had it coming via invading Kuwait. What happened to those weapons of mass destruction that was the impetuous for the invasion? The American people were lied to.....deliberately. And thethere is Afghanistan. God, what a mess! What are we still doing there? Do you consider either country a viable threat to the United States. And now Pakistan, where we surgically remove supposed terrorists utilizing drones. Yeah, maybe a few innocent citizens, including women and children get blown to smithereens but hey, if we didn't do it, who would?



AHAHAHAHA! Are you serious? We export about 8 to 9 billion in arms a year compared to spending 700 billion a year on defense. I think we had better look at a rate increase Again, spending over 6 times more in defense spending than any other country on this planet is idiotic and must stop.

BTW, when are you going to answer AF's query? "What candidate do you prefer and why? "

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Oh, and I am curious John Wayne Stollings. What should the United States do about Iran? Should we allow them to develop nuclear weapons and, if not, what would you do to prevent that?

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

That was sufficient to disprove your claim. There are other examples, but only one was required.



That would require the ability to see into the future. The scope of WWII was not expected yet it unfolded just the same.



Possibly, but the presence of US troops make the need much less likely. It is one of the ways peace is maintained.



Possibly, but that too could cause a rapid escalation of conflict. That whole ounce of prevention and pound of cure concept.



One would be enough to trigger WWIII if it were used.



Because supply lines are a bear and bases allow for support.



Anything is possible, but one of the former Soviet states is more probable.



In what time frame? It seems you are going with an emotional belief rather than a factual base. By definition an invasion would be uninvited, so the more reasonable critera would be whether it was legally or morally justified.



No, I did not at the time and still do not.



Yes, by the same party Ron Paul moved to in the attempt to appear less fringe. Do you think he can change the party? I do not.



We eliminated the government and should not leave until we have stabilized it again or it will be another problem in the very near future.



Afghanistan harbored the leadership that brought about the 9/11 attacks. So, yes, they were a viable threat at the time. The leadership has been eliminated and the plans for a withdrawl are underway.



They might just blow themselves up instead, but in that case they generally try to take a lot of innocent bystanders with them as was the case with the two towers formerly in NYC.



I am not opposed to a reduction in militray spending, however that position has never been popular with the GOP. If you believe Ron Paul can change the base of the GOP, you have much more faith than ability to read history.



I did provide an answer. Did you miss it? Here it is again:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

No, they should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The US and the rest of the world should impose economic sanctions and if that does not work military action would be the final option. Iran has already threatened transit to and from the Gulf with just conventional weapons, what would the situation be with nuclear weapons? A good airburst EMP could cause a lot of concerns, which could lead to more nuclear launches.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I believe the US, the United Nations, and other countries have already imposed economic sanctions. Has it worked? And if not, how long should we wait before we employ military action? And what kind of actions would you condone? Strategic strikes with drones, missile deployment from air and sea, or a combination of all those and including ground troops?

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

The sanctions are still being strengthened and there are more which could be imposed. Thus, there is still time for dimplomatic solutions. Those solutions worked with Iraq, except the Bush administration did not want to believe it.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/New-EU-s ... 23615.html

The EU ban on imports of crude oil should start at the end of January. The U.S. sanctions on financial transactions bring down the value of the rial and are likely to block trade with foreign countries. The threats over the Strait of Hormuz and the proposed resumption of dialogue on nuclear energy. Tests of strength, but no sign of war.

Tehran (AsiaNews / Agencies) - The European Union member countries have rushed to block imports of Iranian oil, giving a new blow to Tehran’s already suffering economy. The agreement drawn up last night will be launched towards the end of January to allow countries that trade with Iran (Spain, Italy, Greece) to find alternative solutions.

The decision has raised the price of Brent oil by 2 dollars.

The new sanctions are another attempt by the international community to block Tehran's nuclear program, suspected of having military purposes. Last November, a UN report showed that Iran is close to building an atomic bomb, even if Tehran continues to claim that its nuclear programs are peaceful.

If there were military action required, drones would not be sufficient to cripple the program so cruise missles or heavy bombers would probably be required. I would not think ground troops would be required.

What do you think should be done about the Iranian nuclear program?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Wow, General John Wayne Stollings has it all figured out! So, you're just going to bomb the shit out of their atomic installations and all is well that ends well? They won't respond in any fashion? Amazing.

I am against using any and all military actions against them unless we go to war with Iran. And by that I mean we declare war against them legally. Not by covert CIA operations or strategic air strikes ordered by the President. The President must ask Congress to DECLARE war and Congress has to vote to declare war through the legislative process. Now, there are exceptions to that such as another state, such as Iran, attacks us we have a right to defend ourselves without first declaring war through Congress.




Oh, I have no idea as I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to manage complex foreign affairs. I would think that diplomacy would be the way to go as economic sanctions are really nothing more than an act of aggression. If diplomacy doesn't work and Iran does develop an atomic weapon we should pray they don't use it.

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

So you would wait until they were able to attack us with a nuclear weapon before doing anything? That would seem to be the best choice for Iran, that is sure.




Yet, you know that it must either be war or nothing ......



That is why isolationism fails as a position. Praying people would not use weapons such as that have not worked very well in the past and has very little probability of working in the future. I think we are fortunate to not have many isolationistic leaning candidates.

I think we are also fortunate German or Russian is not our national language, at least for those who were not to be gassed or purged.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I'm sorry, but where did I promote isolationism? I stated diplomacy should take place, not embargoes,economic sanctions,or military actions. Diplomacy between ALL involved nations. How is that isolationism?



Yeah, didn't work out too well for Japan, did it? Has any other nation used an atomic weapon?



I don't believe we have any isolationist candidates. That is of course unless your definition of isolationism includes not being able to meddle in the affairs of other nations up to and including using covert military actions against ones that don't obey your demands.



Oh please, that's getting close to being able to declare Godwin's Law

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

Asking nicely and waiting for them to change is isolationism as you are actually proposign to do nothing.



No, but then we have not had the type of rogue nations being able to acquire them either.



Ron Paul is an isolationist candidate.



No, it is a realistic view of history.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html

Isolationism refers to America's longstanding reluctance to become involved in European alliances and wars. Isolationists held the view that America's perspective on the world was different from that of European societies and that America could advance the cause of freedom and democracy by means other than war.

American isolationism did not mean disengagement from the world stage. Isolationists were not averse to the idea that the United States should be a world player and even further its territorial, ideological and economic interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

General John Wayne Stollings??? I thought I was the John Wayne type. He certainly was a role model to this decorated veteran.
I think we need our military on the border more than in old cold war places. I would like to see government pay reduced to civilian, seeing it is 35 to 100% higher, and a return of the draft for everyone, for all government work, low buck, and fatties don't get out with a 4F. 100K/yr Congressional secretaries replaced with 10K/yr women draftees. No Golden Parachutes, either.
Iran? Glass 'em if the threaten us.
Ron Paul? NumbersUSA grade F. The old Air Force Flight Surgeon has turned into a wimp in his old age. However, I would like to see us go back to the gold standard.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Yes Johnny, General John Wayne Stollings!

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.