The Iranian War

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

So our 700 bases overseas are missile defense bases? Also look up the AEGIS missile defense system. Who knew our ships could be used to shoot down missiles?

Now you changed the question. You just wanted something that was not to defend our allies nor to attack. Attacking preemptively is general a good idea. Why let someone blsst you first? And Europe doesn't have a military, we have taken it upon ourselves to defend them. Might as well, they probably fight each other anyway, see Greece and Germany.

I am familar with Aegis, but ships need ports. You know, like Korea and Japan and Australia. And then there is Europe, the Mediterranean sure has a lot competing naval interests in it, not to mention trying to get a fleet in the North Sea. It is easier to have a base in Poland, which, by the way, would defend the Eastern Seaboard too.

But you and Ron Paul want to gut the military, where is all the money for the massive world defending fleet going to come from?

[J-Sun Tasogare]

The war has been long coming and is going to happen no matter what America does short of kissing their asses and funding them. They've already been cut off economically so it's likely they'll be desperate for money anyways.

Treaty of Versailles is the worst thing that happen in the world, I swear

[Nick Tasogare]

Originally Posted by Wooster

But you and Ron Paul want to gut the military, where is all the money for the massive world defending fleet going to come from?

What's a little more debt on top of the $14 trillion? :SRhyselol:

[J-Sun Tasogare]

Originally Posted by Nick Tasogare

What's a little more debt on top of the $14 trillion? :SRhyselol:

America is still the most economically powerful country.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by J-Sun Tasogare

The war has been long coming and is going to happen no matter what America does short of kissing their asses and funding them. They've already been cut off economically so it's likely they'll be desperate for money anyways.

Treaty of Versailles is the worst thing that happen in the world, I swear

Kissing who's ass? Europe's? Iran's? I assume a war involving China most likely, similar to the Ducth-English Wars during the 1600-1700's. China seems well versed in antagonising all it's neighbors.

It did many and wide ranging deficincies. Such as limit the British fleet and setting Japan off on their own.

Originally Posted by Nick Tasogare

What's a little more debt on top of the $14 trillion? :SRhyselol:

Depends on how little. But $14 Trillion is nothing compared to the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Of course, Paulites say nothing of those, they just want to live in their own isolated, protectionist, socialist state.

Originally Posted by J-Sun Tasogare

America is still the most economically powerful country.

Depending on how you measure it, it will be China in 2016.

[J-Sun Tasogare]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Kissing who's ass? Europe's? Iran's? I assume a war involving China most likely, similar to the Ducth-English Wars during the 1600-1700's. China seems well versed in antagonising all it's neighbors.

It did many and wide ranging deficincies. Such as limit the British fleet and setting Japan off on their own.


Depends on how little. But $14 Trillion is nothing compared to the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Of course, Paulites say nothing of those, they just want to live in their own isolated, protectionist, socialist state.
Depending on how you measure it, it will be China in 2016.

Iran's, we're already kissing Europe's ass by taking care of problems they created with their own crap. Monroe doctrine doesn't seem stupid anymore

Hitler wouldn't have existed had it not been for the Treaty of Versailles.

If we keep selling out to them and don't start embracing the new era of America as a service rather than a product like China.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by J-Sun Tasogare

Iran's, we're already kissing Europe's ass by taking care of problems they created with their own crap. Monroe doctrine doesn't seem stupid anymore

Hitler wouldn't have existed had it not been for the Treaty of Versailles.

If we keep selling out to them and don't start embracing the new era of America as a service rather than a product like China.

I am pretty sure kissing up to them will do little good that making them laugh all the way to the terrorists they give the bomb to.

Or he might have found it easier to exist. Essentially, Hitler ignored all the terms of the treaty and Europe let him do it.

That doesn't really matter. Their growth is 9%-10%, ours is 1-2%. Their GDp is some where around 30-40% of ours. Doing the math, they take the lead in GDP around 2026, by other metrics, 2016.
But they have 1.3 billion people, it really isn't that impressive.
Before the brief time that UK led the world in GDP then the USA, the third world did because they just had more people. The industrial revolution just changed that for a few centuries.

[Gamabunta]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Watch Dog

Man I was so hoping you'd go with the British East India Company instead you went with Black Water...fine current events and all

a few bad examples don't invalidate the premise

[

and You think it was all the military and it's generals fault? they had a myriad of personal internal problems that is a massive over simplification




wait, you're under the belief I'm in favor of this mess? that I'm in favor of foreign aid an such things? that playing politics with a bunch of crazed, racist religious zealots at the cost of our economic stability is my idea of a good thing?

oh no not at all in fact my response would have been..something else entirely.

?

You should not die for Europeans your life should not be put on the line so a culture of elitist hypocrites who spent thousands of years raping and murdering their way around the world willy nilly..can sit back and criticize and defame you..no, you shouldn't be doing anything on their behalf. As Far as I'm concerned the lot of them aren't worth your spit much less your life.

That being said I'd rather have you there..especially during the current economic crisis..as a reminder to what awaits them should they decide to vent their frustrations on the rest of the world as they've done so many times in the past.

and yeah sure..protecting American interests in that area applies too




hey if they revive project Orion if we get GOD sats that can flatten any resistance from orbit anywhere...I'll be on your side the next time this debate comes up.

but as it stands now? The Alternative seems to be more damaging.

Alright so you agree we should get rid of our bases in Europe since we shouldn't have to defend them.

These people don't need to be reminded. They can't touch us. Many of the people we are fighting don't even own cars. They have no way of reaching the US. They are locally dependent and have no way of harming any American that doesn't get within shooting distance.

If you are in favor of war with Iran, why do you think that current situation would repeat itself again?

Originally Posted by Wooster

Now you changed the question. You just wanted something that was not to defend our allies nor to attack. Attacking preemptively is general a good idea. Why let someone blsst you first? And Europe doesn't have a military, we have taken it upon ourselves to defend them. Might as well, they probably fight each other anyway, see Greece and Germany.

I am familar with Aegis, but ships need ports. You know, like Korea and Japan and Australia. And then there is Europe, the Mediterranean sure has a lot competing naval interests in it, not to mention trying to get a fleet in the North Sea. It is easier to have a base in Poland, which, by the way, would defend the Eastern Seaboard too.

But you and Ron Paul want to gut the military, where is all the money for the massive world defending fleet going to come from?

When and how would we be attacking preemptively? Iran has no capacity to wage war upon us.

The military is getting gutted right now, whether you like it or not. 500k troops cut bud. What do you call that? Under Ron Paul's plan the military stays the same strength and is instead stationed on US soil. That means more bases, more troops, and more weapons defending our shores. All that precious TYD money and contracting is put back into American pockets. Instead what you have now is a corrupt military contracting system which is incapable of accomplishing anything. Do you know that if I put a poster on my wall that causes the paint to get torn, I have to put a work order in to get some contractor to paint over it for 85$ an hour? I could just do it myself but that would violate a gov't contract. The same thing is going on at every overseas base and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the money pumped into them isn't going to the troops. It isn't going to security of the foreign nations. It is going into contractors pockets.

I'll reiterate. Ron Paul wants a strong defensive military stationed on our shores and borders. Iran does not pose a risk to our country and going to war with them would be a mistake.

[J-Sun Tasogare]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I am pretty sure kissing up to them will do little good that making them laugh all the way to the terrorists they give the bomb to.

Or he might have found it easier to exist. Essentially, Hitler ignored all the terms of the treaty and Europe let him do it.

That doesn't really matter. Their growth is 9%-10%, ours is 1-2%. Their GDp is some where around 30-40% of ours. Doing the math, they take the lead in GDP around 2026, by other metrics, 2016.
But they have 1.3 billion people, it really isn't that impressive.
Before the brief time that UK led the world in GDP then the USA, the third world did because they just had more people. The industrial revolution just changed that for a few centuries.

That could be.

Not necessarily it left much of the eastern Europe desperate and like Napoleon he had a tremendous amount of luck in his rise to power. He actually wasn't a bad leader, an awful man, but he took Germany from being worse than broke, to wealthy.

They'll always be a product country which won't allow it to grow any more exponentially powerful than it is now.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

When and how would we be attacking preemptively? Iran has no capacity to wage war upon us.

The military is getting gutted right now, whether you like it or not. 500k troops cut bud. What do you call that? Under Ron Paul's plan the military stays the same strength and is instead stationed on US soil. That means more bases, more troops, and more weapons defending our shores. All that precious TYD money and contracting is put back into American pockets. Instead what you have now is a corrupt military contracting system which is incapable of accomplishing anything. Do you know that if I put a poster on my wall that causes the paint to get torn, I have to put a work order in to get some contractor to paint over it for 85$ an hour? I could just do it myself but that would violate a gov't contract. The same thing is going on at every overseas base and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the money pumped into them isn't going to the troops. It isn't going to security of the foreign nations. It is going into contractors pockets.

I'll reiterate. Ron Paul wants a strong defensive military stationed on our shores and borders. Iran does not pose a risk to our country and going to war with them would be a mistake.

I would call a nuclear bomb a bit an act of wage war. Remember that thing that happen on September 11th? Or perhaps blocking of world shipping lines.

I would not concede Obama's cuts. So Ron Paul is? 80% of the military budget is personnel, saving money in Defense is essentially is less military. If you station them on US soil then you need to pay the upkeep there just as much if they were on foreign soil. That is not to say that some money can be saved with consolidation, but that should be done mainly with US bases.
Trust me, I know all the inefficiencies of DoD rules. I have to live them as much as you do. But again, the money savings will be a pittance.

Which is quite inefficient and silly. If you're deluded peacenik, you can believe that. Did not Iran threaten to stop oil shipping lanes through the Straits of Hormurz? That action itself is an act of war. Iran is run by fanatics, they do stupid things. Just because you don't want to go to war with Iran, doesn't mean that is reality.

Originally Posted by J-Sun Tasogare

That could be.

Not necessarily it left much of the eastern Europe desperate and like Napoleon he had a tremendous amount of luck in his rise to power. He actually wasn't a bad leader, an awful man, but he took Germany from being worse than broke, to wealthy.

They'll always be a product country which won't allow it to grow any more exponentially powerful than it is now.

Well, Germany couldn't get much worse. And there were plenty of opurtunities to stop Germnany's expansion that didn't happen.
And you still have the second half of the problem of letting Japan go gangbusters against the rest of Asia.

They will always be command style economy, which will limit their expansion. Also, CHina has aged faster than any country because of their one-child policy. China will hit hard times, but that is a couple decades away.

[Gamabunta]

Originally Posted by Wooster

I would call a nuclear bomb a bit an act of wage war. Remember that thing that happen on September 11th? Or perhaps blocking of world shipping lines.

I would not concede Obama's cuts. So Ron Paul is? 80% of the military budget is personnel, saving money in Defense is essentially is less military. If you station them on US soil then you need to pay the upkeep there just as much if they were on foreign soil. That is not to say that some money can be saved with consolidation, but that should be done mainly with US bases.
Trust me, I know all the inefficiencies of DoD rules. I have to live them as much as you do. But again, the money savings will be a pittance.

.

No having nuclear energy is not an act of war. Nor is having a bomb. If that were the case why are we not engaged in a war with North Korea and Pakistan?

The upkeep in the US is no where near the level it is overseas. It isn't like those bases are locally supplied. We ship all of our equipment from the US to Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention TDY, Hazardous Duty , Overseas, and Separation Pay. Honestly deployment for the majority of service members is the biggest pay day of all and there is a lot less risk with some of these jobs. A plane mechanic in the military probably will never see combat or even step foot outside of our military base when deployed.

I don't know where you found that percentage, but I am willing to bet that includes contracted workers and civilians. If so that skews that numbers beyond recognition.

Any saving we do at this point is a drop in the bucket. But it is a start towards recognizing what has to be done. And what has to be done is a massive down sizing of our gov't across the entire board.

[Gamabunta]

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Gamabunta

No having nuclear energy is not an act of war. Nor is having a bomb. If that were the case why are we not engaged in a war with North Korea and Pakistan?

The upkeep in the US is no where near the level it is overseas. It isn't like those bases are locally supplied. We ship all of our equipment from the US to Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention TDY, Hazardous Duty , Overseas, and Separation Pay. Honestly deployment for the majority of service members is the biggest pay day of all and there is a lot less risk with some of these jobs. A plane mechanic in the military probably will never see combat or even step foot outside of our military base when deployed.

I don't know where you found that percentage, but I am willing to bet that includes contracted workers and civilians. If so that skews that numbers beyond recognition.

Any saving we do at this point is a drop in the bucket. But it is a start towards recognizing what has to be done. And what has to be done is a massive down sizing of our gov't across the entire board.

Because they already have the bomb. And see the problem it caused. China gave the bomb to Pakistan, and then A.Q Khan sold the technology to N. Korea, Iraq, and Syria amoung others. See how this works? Plus, maybe we should actually listen to what Iran says. Hmm? I don't hear North Korean claiming they want a caliphate.

But if the equipment is already there it need to be shipped back, no?
Of course, war zones would cost a lot more, but both Iraq and Afghanistan essetially cost the same as Obama's stimulus and that's over a decade. Again, a pittance of money compared to entitlement spending. So pay the military less then, the recruitment numbers are being easily met at the moment. A freeze in pay and benefits is more than reasoable. That is what the rest of the federal government is under.

National Review.
DoD is the biggest employer in the world, civilians and contrators included. Of course, civillians cost less than military and contractors even less than that, no benefits need to be paid out to them. But if you want to develope top-of-the-line military equipment you better have civillians and contractors, you aren't getting that with 20-year old grunts. But people are always the largest cost of anything, especially with pensions and health care costs. So if you want to save money from the defense department, you need to slash the military. No other way around it.

And stupid idea. Pennywise, pound foolish.