2012 Presidential Election

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby KD5NRH » Mon May 09, 2011 9:27 pm

74novaman wrote:Since we have the ability using carrier based fighters, US based bombers like the B2, etc to hit anywhere we need to within 24 hours, we can simply close up shop on most of our foreign bases.


They're still good to have as staging areas for infantry, etc. Bombers suck at occupying territory.

Lease them and any non-secret facilities on them back to the host country while maintaining the extraterritoriality and a clause in the lease providing for essentially an emergency short-notice eviction. Also maintain a small emergency/security crew to protect any sensitive toys that can't be packed up and taken home, and to handle emergency operations. (i.e. US plane making an emergency landing for repairs, initial prep work for the above-mentioned eviction, canary for judging the host nation's intentions toward us, etc.) That way, it's all still there if we need it, but at a tiny fraction of the cost of a fully staffed base.
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby G26ster » Mon May 09, 2011 11:10 pm

texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.


On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.
User avatar
G26ster
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby The Mad Moderate » Mon May 09, 2011 11:14 pm

G26ster wrote:
texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.


On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.



Opt-out? so no using the interstate highway system, no public hospitals, reduced police and no military. that sounds great Ron
American by birth Texan by the grace of God

Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
User avatar
The Mad Moderate
Senior Member
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Marble Falls

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Dave2 » Tue May 10, 2011 2:20 am

Yeah... that's a problem.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
Dave2
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Plano, TX

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Purplehood » Tue May 10, 2011 6:39 am

/rant on

I personally prefer more of a tit-for-tat approach to Military forces overseas and the issue of Foreign Aid.

The US offers Foreign Aid only to countries that somehow "aid" us in return. We do not give any Foreign Aid to countries unilaterally. I do not believe in Tax-payer funded Altruism.

If a nation wants our forces on its soil and pays to keep them there (example: Japan), we do it. It gives us Strategic options, different venues for training and the ability to interact with Allied forces.

Get out and stay out of anyplace else.

If we get attacked. We retaliate hard. If bad guys hide behind someone's Burkha, hammer that Burkha along with the bad guy. It is my belief that if a country is going to tolerate/harbor/provide succor for an enemy than that country is also an enemy. Collateral damage and innocent civilians are a casualty of war. Believe you me if a country got the idea that they would suffer brutal and precise attacks for tolerating bad folks in their country that attack us, that country would do one of two things: Attack us, or evict the bad guys. Either way, we know what we are facing.

/rant off
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
User avatar
Purplehood
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby texasmusic » Tue May 10, 2011 10:58 am

G26ster wrote:
texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.


On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.


That's why I had that if in there. I don't know the guys full stance on everything so i'm probing the waters to find out. A national military needs to be kept up. 2A does not do enough to provide for the common defense I agree.


not sure if "probing the waters" is an actual phrase but it sounds cool so i'm coining it :biggrinjester:
I think it better to do right, even if we suffer in so doing, than to incur the reproach of our consciences and posterity.
Robert E. Lee
User avatar
texasmusic
Senior Member
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:43 pm
Location: Katy

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Purplehood » Tue May 10, 2011 11:01 am

If it sounds cool, you are compelled to stick with it. I fully understand. :anamatedbanana
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
User avatar
Purplehood
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby Medic624 » Tue May 10, 2011 8:34 pm

Purplehood wrote:/rant on

I personally prefer more of a tit-for-tat approach to Military forces overseas and the issue of Foreign Aid.

The US offers Foreign Aid only to countries that somehow "aid" us in return. We do not give any Foreign Aid to countries unilaterally. I do not believe in Tax-payer funded Altruism.

If a nation wants our forces on its soil and pays to keep them there (example: Japan), we do it. It gives us Strategic options, different venues for training and the ability to interact with Allied forces.

Get out and stay out of anyplace else.

If we get attacked. We retaliate hard. If bad guys hide behind someone's Burkha, hammer that Burkha along with the bad guy. It is my belief that if a country is going to tolerate/harbor/provide succor for an enemy than that country is also an enemy. Collateral damage and innocent civilians are a casualty of war. Believe you me if a country got the idea that they would suffer brutal and precise attacks for tolerating bad folks in their country that attack us, that country would do one of two things: Attack us, or evict the bad guys. Either way, we know what we are facing.

/rant off


:fire And no quarter shall be requested or granted :fire
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (AMDG)
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
User avatar
Medic624
Senior Member
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:56 pm
Location: Pearland

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby tbrown » Fri May 13, 2011 8:46 pm

KD5NRH wrote:
74novaman wrote:Since we have the ability using carrier based fighters, US based bombers like the B2, etc to hit anywhere we need to within 24 hours, we can simply close up shop on most of our foreign bases.


They're still good to have as staging areas for infantry, etc. Bombers suck at occupying territory.

That's true but there are some targets that don't need to be occupied and held. :evil2:

I like your idea about leasing them back to the host country. If the host country won't go for that, they can be semi-mothballed and maintained by a skeleton crew.

We should also expect the other members of the UN security council to pony up equal resources, or we should cut back to match their average contribution, especially in a bad economy like now with a President who claimed he was against using the US military to meddle in foreign country's internal conflicts.
"if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"
tbrown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: South Austin

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby RockingRook » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:52 am

I am coming into this discussion late but it sounds interesting the little I read here. I have a question. Will Libya become Obama's
Vietnam? What the heck are we doing there besides spending money and helping to protect oil bound for the EU?

When France and Germany asked us to give assistance in Libya they really meant would the US carry the load? We should have told
the EU that we would assist them if the paid the cost for our expenditures. That's right pay the US for our Cruise missiles, our time and
all expenses. It is about time Europe take a stance without the assistance of the US to protect their own interests.

They are quick to condemn the US at every turn.

I also hope the GOP has a candidate to beat Obama in 2012. Personally I would vote for Mickey Mouse if he ran against Obama. Our country
is being destroyed by his administration.

What are we still doing in Afghanistan? Spending money and losing lives for no good purpose.

Whoever said in previous posts that when we commit our military it should be final and decisive. Our Generals should take charge and not our
Congressmen and Senators. Our military should be "turned loose" and do their job and return home. No to nation building
or helping anyone change to a Democracy. It never works!!

The US should through the UN out of the US and use that space for something constructive. It would also ave us a lot of $$$.

We should opt out of NATO as well. Another worthless org. that has bled the US for years without even a "Thank you."

I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.
Born in Brooklyn, NY joined AF in '65 as a 2nd Lt. Went through Naval EOD School in 67. Spent
the next 8 years in and around South East Asia. I was stationed in Texas in '84. Retired from the AF in '85.
Remained in Texas, raised my 2 kids and here I stayed. I hope it Rains!!
User avatar
RockingRook
Senior Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:03 pm
Location: Universal City, Texas

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby tacticool » Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:01 pm

RockingRook wrote:I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.

On the military/imperial front, Obama isn't really doing anything Bush didn't do.
When in doubt
Vote them out!
User avatar
tacticool
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: 2012 Presidential Election

Postby The Mad Moderate » Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:22 pm

tacticool wrote:
RockingRook wrote:I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.

On the military/imperial front, Obama isn't really doing anything Bush didn't do.

On a lot of issues Obama is not doing anything different than Bush. Thats why so many like me are sick of him and calling for a primary challenge. Even though it would be futile. He is not Obama so much as Bush 2.0.
American by birth Texan by the grace of God

Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
User avatar
The Mad Moderate
Senior Member
 
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:31 am
Location: Marble Falls

Previous

Return to Federal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest