Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military (1 Viewer)

[CBusAlex]

What would I do? I start working with NATO to start moving troops up against the borders of Russia. I'd also start moving in NATO troops into Ukraine. Not where the fighting is, but close enough. And I tell Putin that if any of these troops come under fire, there would be a retaliation. A MASSIVE retaliation. Then I would go on TV and give a speech saying that I expect that Putin can handle his army and that none of his troops should fire or advanced. And if they do, that means that Putin is not in control of his own military.

You want to invade Ukraine?

 

[Apple Jack]

Has to be schtick.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

From what I understand, most of the proposed reductions to our military spending are designed to weed out antiquated weapons and programs in favor of more modern approaches, and a large percentage of these were proposed by the Pentagon, but rejected by Republican lawmakers because they don't want to appear to ever be in favor of "cutting the military." In his rush to accuse Obama of appeasement, Romney fails to mention any of this .

Actually, retrofitting and upgrading antiquated weapons systems is far cheaper than developing new technology. It would be much, much cheaper to upgrade (primarily avionics) existing F-16s and F-18s, than it is to design, build, test, train and deploy a 5th gen plane like the F-22 or F-35. We haven't seen a new class of Destroyer's (Navy's primary non-Carrier combat ship) in the last 25 years. A new generation Destroyer (Zumwalt class) has been contracted, but only 3 ships have been officially ordered. Most of our tanks (M1A1 Abrams) are 25-30 years old. Since there is little design and development cost to upgrading existing weapons systems, as compared to developing new ones, that's the primary way to keep defense spending consistent, or lower it. New programs require lots of R&D money over the first 5-10 years, with little to show during that time. The DoD, IMO, does a good job of balancing the two, but just like most federal agencies over the last 5-10 years, budgets have been cut and when it comes to the military, pushing those new technologies out to future years is the quick solution to get in the green. However, you keep pushing replacements out to the right too much, and eventually you get into a situation where there isn't enough time to ramp up when eventual replacements are needed. We could still be flying F111s and sailing around the world in Battleships built during WWII (which many small countries still do), but we're not going to put much fear into anyone that way; let alone protect ourselves and execute overseas missions.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

 

[cstu]

First off the Cold War didn't work.

The Cold War was basically won in 1948 when we lifted the blockade of Berlin with the Airlift. That was the decisive victory. After that, we spent the next 40 years squandering US goodwill by supporting corrupt dictators around the globe simply because they claimed to be anti-Communist. Sometimes we went to war for these guys, with terrible results. The Soviet Union post Stalin wasn't looking to conquer the world; they created a buffer zone in Eastern Europe because they were scared of future invasion. You claim that the Cold War prevented them from aggression because they were afraid of us, but what happened in 1956 when they crushed a rebellion in Hungary, or in 1968, when they did the same to the Czechs? Nothing. We did nothing, because just as now with regard to the Ukraine, we are helpless in such circumstances. And both Hungary and Czechoslovakia were much further west than Ukraine.

I'm not going to defend the U.S.'s actions in supporting dictators, but at some point Europe has to take responsibility for their own backyard. If they aren't willing to join forces to protect Ukraine than why should we?

 

[NIU Kicker]

If Russia can blow up the world 50 times over and we can blow up the world 25 times over are we really out gunned?

 

[kentric]

Put me down as a "no" for a war against Russia, thanks.

Wuss. Time for you to get a bigger coat.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

OK.

Sorry Iron Sheik I just can't agree. Cuba was near us and the missiles there represented a threat, also there's that whole Monroe Doctrine thing. The Ukraine's not a member of NATO. I don't think it would be wise to go to war over Ukraine or threaten nuclear war.

I didn't say threaten nuclear war. But I want the Russians to fear the thought that we could go to nuclear war with them.

Under what conditions would you be willing to initiate a nuclear war against the Russians?

ETA. Because I can't think of any myself.

Why do you keep asking that? I'm not saying to initiate nuclear war. What I've continually said is that the Cold War worked because we both were afraid of nuclear war. Now only we are. Did you not hear Putin issue a warning to the US not to mess with "Nuclear Russia" last week? Does that sound like he's the least bit afraid of us? Oddly enough, we are afraid and we are technically "Nuclear America." He's getting no push back. Lines need to be drawn in the sand. Stalemates need to happen. Until this does, Russia just continues to defy the world. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I'm not cool with passenger airliners being shot out of the air. Countries being taken over because no one will stand with them. And why not? Because Russia has nuclear weapons? Well, we have them too. Draw those lines and let's see how fast Putin crosses them.

What happens when Putin crosses them? What implied threat are we making that Putin would rightly consider credible?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Because Democrats often find a way to be even worse.

 

[TheIronSheik]

OK.

Sorry Iron Sheik I just can't agree. Cuba was near us and the missiles there represented a threat, also there's that whole Monroe Doctrine thing. The Ukraine's not a member of NATO. I don't think it would be wise to go to war over Ukraine or threaten nuclear war.

I didn't say threaten nuclear war. But I want the Russians to fear the thought that we could go to nuclear war with them.

Under what conditions would you be willing to initiate a nuclear war against the Russians?

ETA. Because I can't think of any myself.

Why do you keep asking that? I'm not saying to initiate nuclear war. What I've continually said is that the Cold War worked because we both were afraid of nuclear war. Now only we are. Did you not hear Putin issue a warning to the US not to mess with "Nuclear Russia" last week? Does that sound like he's the least bit afraid of us? Oddly enough, we are afraid and we are technically "Nuclear America." He's getting no push back. Lines need to be drawn in the sand. Stalemates need to happen. Until this does, Russia just continues to defy the world. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I'm not cool with passenger airliners being shot out of the air. Countries being taken over because no one will stand with them. And why not? Because Russia has nuclear weapons? Well, we have them too. Draw those lines and let's see how fast Putin crosses them.

What happens when Putin crosses them? What implied threat are we making that Putin would rightly consider credible?

I don't think Putin would cross them. That's the point. The same way we wouldn't cross his line. Neither wants a full on war. And no one especially wants to be the country that starts it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

OK.

Sorry Iron Sheik I just can't agree. Cuba was near us and the missiles there represented a threat, also there's that whole Monroe Doctrine thing. The Ukraine's not a member of NATO. I don't think it would be wise to go to war over Ukraine or threaten nuclear war.

I didn't say threaten nuclear war. But I want the Russians to fear the thought that we could go to nuclear war with them.

Under what conditions would you be willing to initiate a nuclear war against the Russians?

ETA. Because I can't think of any myself.

Why do you keep asking that? I'm not saying to initiate nuclear war. What I've continually said is that the Cold War worked because we both were afraid of nuclear war. Now only we are. Did you not hear Putin issue a warning to the US not to mess with "Nuclear Russia" last week? Does that sound like he's the least bit afraid of us? Oddly enough, we are afraid and we are technically "Nuclear America." He's getting no push back. Lines need to be drawn in the sand. Stalemates need to happen. Until this does, Russia just continues to defy the world. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I'm not cool with passenger airliners being shot out of the air. Countries being taken over because no one will stand with them. And why not? Because Russia has nuclear weapons? Well, we have them too. Draw those lines and let's see how fast Putin crosses them.

What happens when Putin crosses them? What implied threat are we making that Putin would rightly consider credible?

I don't think Putin would cross them. That's the point. The same way we wouldn't cross his line. Neither wants a full on war. And no one especially wants to be the country that starts it.

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

 

[TheIronSheik]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

 

[dickey moe]

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Because they aren't Democrats.

 

[dickey moe]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

Which begs the question: are our strategic interests in Asia via South Korea more important than our strategic interests in Europe via Ukraine?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

I get that 100%. That's why I said what needs to be done is to start sending troops to the Russian borders. At no time did I say we need to attack Russia. Or start a war in Ukraine. What I'm saying is, over time, we should be moving our troops in to position so that a move by Russia would have that same 100% credible feeling as in South Korea. This has to become a game of chess. We are not moving our troops into positions to fight. We are moving our troops into positions to block.

That is my point.

 

[Mister Martie]

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

I get that 100%. That's why I said what needs to be done is to start sending troops to the Russian borders. At no time did I say we need to attack Russia. Or start a war in Ukraine. What I'm saying is, over time, we should be moving our troops in to position so that a move by Russia would have that same 100% credible feeling as in South Korea. This has to become a game of chess. We are not moving our troops into positions to fight. We are moving our troops into positions to block.

That is my point.

In fairness, we did that during the cold war. Arguably that's the reason why we had troops in West Germany, for example.

Not sure that works now. If I'm Putin, as soon as the first US soldier arrives anywhere near Ukraine, I invade immediately to preempt any additional buildup by the US.

 

[skol asylum]

Sour grapes.

 

[The Commish]

I find it odd that he uses "size" of Navy as an argument. Isn't that why we have technology? To reduce the number of people we put in harm's way. I think that's probably one of the worst ways to attempt to make a point ever, and that's saying something given our gov't track record trying to make cases for/against various things.

 

[CBusAlex]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

I get that 100%. That's why I said what needs to be done is to start sending troops to the Russian borders. At no time did I say we need to attack Russia. Or start a war in Ukraine. What I'm saying is, over time, we should be moving our troops in to position so that a move by Russia would have that same 100% credible feeling as in South Korea. This has to become a game of chess. We are not moving our troops into positions to fight. We are moving our troops into positions to block. That is my point.

Do these countries you'd like us to start sending troops into get a say in this? Ukraine might not be too pleased to become ground zero for WWIII.

I mean, the best case scenario in this plan is that the US/NATO invades Ukraine from the west, Russia responds with a full-on invasion from the east, and they meet somewhere in the middle without firing a shot. Now you have the country partitioned into an East Ukraine (possibly just annexed by Russia) and a West Ukraine, with foreign troops stations there indefinitely. That's the best case.

 

[CBusAlex]

Oh, and that line in the sand you want? It's right here. Russia hasn't crossed it yet.

 

[Apple Jack]

Oh, and that line in the sand you want? It's right here. Russia hasn't crossed it yet.

Obama actually went over there with a stick a couple days ago and highlighted it himself.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

I get that 100%. That's why I said what needs to be done is to start sending troops to the Russian borders. At no time did I say we need to attack Russia. Or start a war in Ukraine. What I'm saying is, over time, we should be moving our troops in to position so that a move by Russia would have that same 100% credible feeling as in South Korea. This has to become a game of chess. We are not moving our troops into positions to fight. We are moving our troops into positions to block. That is my point.

Do these countries you'd like us to start sending troops into get a say in this? Ukraine might not be too pleased to become ground zero for WWIII.

I mean, the best case scenario in this plan is that the US/NATO invades Ukraine from the west, Russia responds with a full-on invasion from the east, and they meet somewhere in the middle without firing a shot. Now you have the country partitioned into an East Ukraine (possibly just annexed by Russia) and a West Ukraine, with foreign troops stations there indefinitely. That's the best case.

Yes. I'm sure Ukraine would consider NATO coming to their aid and "invasion."

 

[timschochet]

Think about this way. We have (I think) around 30,000 troops stationed in and around Seoul. If North Korea was to attack South Korean, they would inevitably have to directly attack a very large number of US troops. There is absolutely no way -- none -- that the US would sit for that. North Korea and China both know that. In this case, our threat to retaliate with overwhelming force to a North Korean attack is 100% credible.

Contrast that with what's going on in Ukraine. We don't have anybody over there. If Putin invades, the only harm we can claim is being made to look a little foolish. There's no reason why Russia should expect any sort of military response to something like that. That's why our threat against North Korea is credible while our threat against Russia isn't.

Edit: In poker terms, we are pot-committed on the Korean peninsula and everybody at the table knows it. In Ukraine, we don't have the pot odds to continue in the face of any serious betting. In game theory terms, North Korean deterrence is a subgame perfect equilibrium, but it isn't for Russia.

I get that 100%. That's why I said what needs to be done is to start sending troops to the Russian borders. At no time did I say we need to attack Russia. Or start a war in Ukraine. What I'm saying is, over time, we should be moving our troops in to position so that a move by Russia would have that same 100% credible feeling as in South Korea. This has to become a game of chess. We are not moving our troops into positions to fight. We are moving our troops into positions to block. That is my point.

In fairness, we did that during the cold war. Arguably that's the reason why we had troops in West Germany, for example.

Not sure that works now. If I'm Putin, as soon as the first US soldier arrives anywhere near Ukraine, I invade immediately to preempt any additional buildup by the US.

West Germany is not the Ukraine. Again, during the Cold War, Hungary rebelled against the Soviets and begged for our assistance. We didn't help them. And we're not going to help the Ukraine. Too far to the east.

 

[Eminence]

I think we're best focusing our attention on ISIS and the Middle East first and foremost. Especially if the problems that are arising there are a result of our interference under George W. Bush. As far as Ukraine and Russia goes, that's a NATO issue.

It's better for NATO to say "Hey United States, we're taking care of this Putin problem. Do you want in?" than for the United States to jump in guns blazing. I think it's smart to start with arming the Ukrainians.

If this escalates though, I would assume we've got a Black Ops team ready to start wrecking havoc in Russia undercover.

 

[RC94]

Instead of building newer and bigger weapons of mass destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.

 

[MikeIke]

I think we're best focusing our attention on ISIS and the Middle East first and foremost. Especially if the problems that are arising there are a result of our interference under George W. Bush. As far as Ukraine and Russia goes, that's a NATO issue.

It's better for NATO to say "Hey United States, we're taking care of this Putin problem. Do you want in?" than for the United States to jump in guns blazing. I think it's smart to start with arming the Ukrainians.

If this escalates though, I would assume we've got a Black Ops team ready to start wrecking havoc in Russia undercover.

God help me, I agree with Eminence...

I think NATO needs to flex its muscles in Ukraine and show Putin that we won't stand for this type of aggression. However, I think that the threat posed by ISIS is more immediate, and naturally lends itself to receiving help from all the Arab nations in the immediate vicinity.

NATO should come up with an agreement to put peacekeepers in Ukraine to keep tabs on the Russians, and the US, with Arab League help, should smash ISIS and send all of its followers straight to the 72 virgins they're expecting.

It won't be easy, it won't be pretty, but this is an opportunity the US has to join with lots of other countries and create an actual "coalition of the willing" to counter a threat to all countries in the immediate area.

 

[timschochet]

Why should NATO flex it's muscles in the Ukraine? The Soviet Union used to OWN the Ukraine, and we never lifted a finger. Don't get me wrong, it's a very bad thing for the Ukrainian people if they were to suffer more subjugation to the Russians, as they have for centuries, but it would not be a threat to the west- it's not the Rhineland, and this ain't Nazi Germany. The rules have changed.

We can get economically ugly with the Russians, but that's about it. If they invade Poland, then yeah we are bound by treaty to go to war. But the Ukraine is not Poland.

 

[MikeIke]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

 

[timschochet]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

 

[skol asylum]

Every knows when they say let NATO handle these problems youre saying let the US handle them right? Countries like Germany and France who are supposedly our allies are in bed with countries like Iran and Russia economically and have incentive to do nothing in order to protect their interests.

 

[MikeIke]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

I think we'd be all for it if Russia started invading Mexico. Which is exactly what they've done in Ukraine.

 

[Arizona Ron]

 

[Slapdash]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

I think we'd be all for it if Russia started invading Mexico. Which is exactly what they've done in Ukraine.

 

[Apple Jack]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

I think we'd be all for it if Russia started invading Mexico. Which is exactly what they've done in Ukraine.

I couldn't even find a good taco today.

 

[quickhands]

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Cuz dems are the suck?

 

[quickhands]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

Just keep turkey out

 

[Slapdash]

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Because Democrats often find a way to be even worse.

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Cuz dems are the suck?

Someone remind me why Libertarians often vote Republican?

Because they aren't Democrats

Great way of illustrating the problems with this country, everyone.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I find it odd that he uses "size" of Navy as an argument.

That's because it's a ridiculously ####ty argument.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Libertarians aren't Republicans embarrassed to admit it, they just think Republicans are 10x better than Democrats.

Totally different.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dinky countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS too now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns. This will not be different for Russia or China. Russia left Afghanistan with tails between their legs so they know it is not easy for anybody.

Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

 

[Slapdash]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dingy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our number #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns.

Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

We're in a depression now, so it seems like a good time to get in a real war.

 

[Apple Jack]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dingy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our number #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns.

Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

We're in a depression now, so it seems like a good time to get in a real war.

Whatever it takes to drum up some nuclear weapon tension. If that runaway plane flying over Cuba today wasn't a sign that we need a Cuban Missile Crisis for our time, I don't know what is.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dingy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our number #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns.Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

We're in a depression now, so it seems like a good time to get in a real war.

US national debt was $49B in 1941, which is equivalent to $800B today. Now our national debt is close to $18T.

 

[timschochet]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dingy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our number #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns.Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

We're in a depression now, so it seems like a good time to get in a real war.

US national debt was $49B in 1941, which is equivalent to $800B today. Now our national debt is close to $18T.

and what is our gross national product ?

 

[5-ish Finkle]

and what is our gross national product ?

Pretty sure that it's morbidly obese rednecks.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So Mitt is going to run again?

 

[avoiding injuries]

So Mitt is going to run again?

No.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/03/romney-says-hes-not-running-for-president-in-185570.html

But

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-had-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

Although (question 38/39)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

 

[TxBuckeye]

and what is our gross national product ?

It's the total value of goods produced and services provided by a country during one year, equal to the gross domestic product plus the net income from foreign investments. But that's not important right now. And don't call me Shirley.