Obama’S Damaging Blow To Our Military

[Jesus_lol]

Unless the USA is planning on defending itself from an alien race, there is really no threat on earth large enough to justify how large the current military is. im pretty sure every single country with an army could gang up on the US at once and still get destroyed.

its the military equivalent of commuting around the city with one of these [spoiler][img]http://www.samson4x4.com/photos/limo_DSC01184.jpg[/img][/spoiler] suggesting that maybe you could get by with slightly smaller tires is hardly unreasonable.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326494850' post='2368527']
Why is Iran threatening to cut off the straits of Hormuz? Do they really want to cut off their own major export and topple their economy?

or, are they perhaps ticked off that all of our sanctions have already toppled their economy and are sick of us meddling in their affairs ( [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE&feature=related[/media] )? they would not be threatening to close that strait if it were not for our actions. it is in their own self interest to trade and export oil, which tells you just how dire we have made this situation that they are willing to threaten to close those straights (I don't think they actually will do it, I think they're just barking back at as because we keep rattling their cage)
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but the idea that Iran is mortally outraged that any country is meddling in their affairs is outrageously hypocritical. We oppose them getting nuclear capabilities precisely because the only check we have to stop them from meddling any worse in the affairs of other countries (like derailing any hope of a peace in the 'Holy Lands' through their funding of Hamas or their attempts to turn Iraq into a vassal state or their support for Hezbollah, the list goes on) is the threat of serious military retaliation. They have had an expansionist agenda since the very beginning of their current regime and the possession of nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the region.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326496329' post='2368541']
They have had an expansionist agenda since the very beginning of their current regime and the possession of nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the region.
[/quote]

couldnt you say the same of israel?

[4588686]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326496080' post='2368536']
Unless the USA is planning on defending itself from an alien race, there is really no threat on earth large enough to justify how large the current military is. im pretty sure every single country with an army could gang up on the US at once and still get destroyed.[/QUOTE]

Really? Because the current US military came within a hair's breadth of having to retreat from Iraq and Al-Queda, which devastated our economy and killed 3,000 of our citizens, had no traditional standing army.

Sure, if utilizing our nuclear arsenal to utterly devastate the world is an acceptable option for you then you're exactly right.

[4588686]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326496412' post='2368544']
couldnt you say the same of israel?
[/quote]

I don't think that Israel having a nuclear weapon is a destabilizing factor in the region since it has deterred aggression from the surrounding Arab regimes. Israel certainly has had an expansionist agenda. This is partly defensive, wanting breathing space so Egypt or Syria wouldn't be able to launch a devastating surprise attack again and partly expansionist in having the ideological goal of obtaining the rest of 'Biblical Israel' by displacing the Palestinians.

[Aloysius]

the US military is more than capable of taking out any other army on earth (and would be at 2005 defense spending levels) in a war to defend our country.

for a military occupation to BUILD UP another country, when there is a significant portion of the population that opposes us, well, no, we might not have the capability to sustain that, we might have to retreat from that kind of action.

[BG45]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1326496412' post='2368544']
couldnt you say the same of israel?
[/quote]

Dude...bringing up Israel online is just asking for trouble.

[4588686]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1326496863' post='2368552']
Dude...bringing up Israel online is just asking for trouble.
[/quote]

I think people here know that I'm pretty critical of Israel's actions. But you can look at the difference between Israel having a nuclear weapon and Iran having a nuclear weapon. If Iran gets a weapon Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons on it's soil. Either by illegally developing its own or, more plausibly, making an agreement with Pakistan whereby Pakistan would station nuclear weapons on Saudi territory much like America's nuclear forced that were deployed in Europe during the Cold War (thereby remaining in compliance with the non-proliferation treaties). Israel's expansionism, while deeply immoral and brutal within a limited area, is pretty much confined to the Occupied Territories, and not a serious threat to the other major regional powers, while Iran's designs are seen as seriously threatening, for good reason, to the surrounding regimes.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Hasan

[Aloysius]

the 8 minute mark in the video I posted is a very interesting thing to watch to put ourselves in their shoes. I am not saying that the Irania regime is good, but there is a legitimate grevience against us. and if they are economically supporting some proxy war for their cause... well la-dee-dah, do we have any moral standing to condemn them for something like that? we do the exact same thing, we have done the exact same thing for a long time, against them. their position that there should be a nation called Palestine replacing the spot in the map where the current nation called Israel is now drawn is a position that is popular among Arabs and Persians, it's a position that's in their self-interest, and perhaps they egg on that situation. Israel can defend itself if it feels threatened, though Iran has no intention of attacking it... the best way to solve that basket of eggs is to really make a two-state solution that works so that tensions in that area are lowered and Iran is less able to influence that situation.

regarding their expansionism "since their beginning", are you talking in terms of practical actions, or some religious philosophy of a one-world caliphate? beause in the beginning of their regime they were attacked by Iraq, not the other way around, while the US played both sides.

[4588686]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326496824' post='2368550']
the US military is more than capable of taking out any other army on earth (and would be at 2005 defense spending levels) in a war to defend our country.

for a military occupation to BUILD UP another country, when there is a significant portion of the population that opposes us, well, no, we might not have the capability to sustain that, we might have to retreat from that kind of action.
[/quote]

The philosophy you are espousing is pretty much exactly what we pursued in response to the security threats emanating from the power vacuum that existed in Afghanistan and western Pakistan in the 90's. That really didn't turn out well. It's exactly the threat we face in Somalia and Yemen currently.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326497191' post='2368560']
I think people here know that I'm pretty critical of Israel's actions. But you can look at the difference between Israel having a nuclear weapon and Iran having a nuclear weapon. If Iran gets a weapon Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons on it's soil. Either by illegally developing its own or, more plausibly, making an agreement with Pakistan whereby Pakistan would station nuclear weapons on Saudi territory much like America's nuclear forced that were deployed in Europe during the Cold War (thereby remaining in compliance with the non-proliferation treaties). Israel's expansionism, while deeply immoral and brutal within a limited area, is pretty much confined to the Occupied Territories, and not a serious threat to the other major regional powers, while Iran's designs are seen as seriously threatening, for good reason, to the surrounding regimes.
[/quote]

and the surrounding regimes will defend against them, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction will keep both sides from using nuclear weapons.

I don't think Iran should get a nuke, but I also think that the way that we've gone about trying to get Iran not to get a nuke is the surest way to inspire them to continue to seek a nuke. If the only way we'll respect their sovereignty is if they have a nuclear weapon, of course they'll seek one. I think there are many better ways to work to try to keep Iran from getting nukes than with these economic sanctions and such; but ultimately, we cannot keep them from nuclear knowledge forever. They are a smart modern people who will eventually work it out, our current policy has backed us into a corner of basically a question of WHEN we will go to war with Iran, not IF. a policy of containment would be a much better idea IMO.

I personally happen to think the war propaganda about their nuclear program is likely just as exagerated and full of holes as the war propaganda intelligence was in the lead up to the Iraq war, though.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326496600' post='2368546']
Really? Because the current US military came within a hair's breadth of having to retreat from Iraq and Al-Queda, which devastated our economy and killed 3,000 of our citizens, had no traditional standing army.

Sure, if utilizing our nuclear arsenal to utterly devastate the world is an acceptable option for you then you're exactly right.
[/quote]

by the 3000 are you referring to 9/11? because a larger military wouldnt have stopped that.

neither of those problems you mentioned are because the US army is too small. Vietnam, afghanistan, iraq couldnt be solved by just shoving more men into the meat grinder Zapp Brannigan style. Its just a case of a problem being a recessed phillips screw that wont pull out, and the US Military being a large sledgehammer.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326497404' post='2368564']
The philosophy you are espousing is pretty much exactly what we pursued in response to the security threats emanating from the power vacuum that existed in Afghanistan and western Pakistan in the 90's. That really didn't turn out well. It's exactly the threat we face in Somalia and Yemen currently.
[/quote]
in the 90's we had our troops on Saudi soil and bombed Iraq a couple times, kept up our enraging tactics and sanctioning throughout the region, probably got this clip played all over the Arab world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

so no, we were NOT espousing non-interventionism with free trade and diplomacy and friendship around the world. Afghanistan and Pakistan just happened to be off of our interventionist radar at the time, and the building up of Al Quaida there was directly related to the above listed things that we were doing throughout the region.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326465124' post='2368297']
What the Congressman seems to be intimating, but hesitating, in the interest of diplomacy, to explicitly state, is of course that Britain's (and France's, and Italy's) 'smarter, leaner' military was shown to be incapable of sustaining an air campaign against Libya (a fifth rate power) without American aid.
[/quote]

Most European militaries, all European militaries one might say, simply aren't built for wars. As an indicator of this, check out Germany's constitution. They only allow their military which is one of the most powerful in the continent to be deployed with UN authorisation or if someone makes war upon them and their NATO allies. As a result, they lack the inclination to build up a military that allows them to engage in high intensity warfare. European forces are having enough trouble as it is in Afghanistan. A big big war, like an occupation of Iran (God-forbid)? Fuggetaboutit. America, for whatever reason, is the only Western country that [i]wants[/i] to be very militarily powerful, enough so that it can land troops halfway around the world. Even the Soviet Union at its height had trouble with that. No other country has that capability, although some may have the desire.

[Amppax]

Nevermind, I can't read.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Amppax