C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
Dec 9, 2009 9:45am
How would you define that?Con_Alma wrote: I want it to be more than strong.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 9, 2009 9:51am
^^^^
I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.
I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Dec 10, 2009 10:55am
That's expensive. I think I'm perhaps more isolationist, and I'm not particularly fond of dumping out billions to keep up bases all around the world. I think I'd fit in great with the pre-WWI mindset.Con_Alma wrote: ^^^^
I want to ensure it's the greatest military of the world.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Dec 10, 2009 11:02am
If the Russian bear weren't growing again in Eastern Europe, I'd agree and say we should be shifting base resources to meet more likely threats like N. Korea, Iran and Pakistan. I'm still not sure that wouldn't be a better idea than the status quo.
Isolationism, though, I think would be a very dangerous policy. I think the world needs -- and benefits greatly from -- an engaged America.
Isolationism, though, I think would be a very dangerous policy. I think the world needs -- and benefits greatly from -- an engaged America.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 10, 2009 12:36pm
It's not necessary to have bases all around the world in order to be the strongest military.
Where the military is present at and located is more of a strategy/tactic than a measurement of it's strength.
There is no doubt having strength through power is expensive. Should it continue? I don't know. Do I want it as stated? Absolutely.
Where the military is present at and located is more of a strategy/tactic than a measurement of it's strength.
There is no doubt having strength through power is expensive. Should it continue? I don't know. Do I want it as stated? Absolutely.