The biggest threat to our national security right now is our economic situation, not Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq or whoever else in the middle east. The thing we need to realize is that regardless of what we say or do, people in those countries are going to still hate us. We do not need to create a world empire and nation build. In my opinion America's strength has always been its Economic power, not its ability to spread democracy.

We do not need to babysit Israel and the rest of the world. I wonder what would happen if the UN came to the United States and asked us to cut our nuclear program by 75% because the rest of the world was concerned with us having too many nukes and too much power.

I know its not the same because at the end of the day if Iran were to get a nuke, they would use it immediately because they are crazy, lunatic, heartless people hellbent on destroying the world and only a group of crazy people would even consider dropping nuclear bombs on countries and killing thousands of innocent people. Right?

I like Ron Paul, I think he actually says what he believes and I believe he is a brilliant guy. I am not 100% with him on every issue but its close. Out of the rest, I do like Rick Perry also.

pmoney25: With that avatar, I'll believe ANYTHING you say! My mind is all yours. Heck, I'll even kiss your Converse!

"Who's the master?"

pmoney25;868504 wrote:The biggest threat to our national security right now is our economic situation, not Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq or whoever else in the middle east. The thing we need to realize is that regardless of what we say or do, people in those countries are going to still hate us. We do not need to create a world empire and nation build. In my opinion America's strength has always been its Economic power, not its ability to spread democracy.

How novel a concept!

pmoney25;868504 wrote:We do not need to babysit Israel and the rest of the world. I wonder what would happen if the UN came to the United States and asked us to cut our nuclear program by 75% because the rest of the world was concerned with us having too many nukes and too much power.

I'm sure that would go over well.

pmoney25;868504 wrote:I know its not the same because at the end of the day if Iran were to get a nuke, they would use it immediately because they are crazy, lunatic, heartless people hellbent on destroying the world and only a group of crazy people would even consider dropping nuclear bombs on countries and killing thousands of innocent people. Right?

And when they don't, there will be a lot of people feeling stupid for the Chicken Little view of the whole thing.

We're not dealing with a faction of zealots, but with an entire nation, whose motivations are not purely and unadulteratedly religious in nature.
I'm not saying we trust them or that we completely write them off, and I don't think ANYONE is saying that. They dislike the US, sure, but it's lu dicrous to think that they're automatically going to use the first nuke they get on the US just because they don't like the US. They don't like a LOT of countries ... particularly one in their back yard ... who should be MUCH more afraid of (but still confident in their ability to handle) a nuclear Iran.

My impression from the debate the other night was that Ron Paul was saying "trust them" and "completely write them off". Just sayin'.

Based on what? Either way, we end up with a party that has done as much harm as they have done good. You can feel free to try to determine which is the lesser of the evils. I'm going to choose what I think is the greatest good. If the country goes to hell because of who the idiot masses chose, then their hands are the dirty ones. Not mine, because I did what I could do to make things better, instead of just trying to decide that one party is ruining the country at a slower pace than the other (really, it's pretty much a crap shoot, anymore ... the party formerly known as the Republicans are no longer true Republicans anyway).

I'm not at the point of abandoning all things Republican just yet. I'm encouraged by certain attempts at reforming the party from within, and taking advantage of the inherent benefits of the two-party system. I think I can point to a few positive things enacted by certain Republican administrations over the past 150 years without being a complete partisan hack.

O-Trap;868403 wrote: People spending those 150 years picking what they perceive to be the lesser of the two evils has gotten us where we are today. After 150 years, you'd think people would realize that it isn't working.

I think people picking the candidate who would most likely provide for (not promote) their welfare in the form of entitlements, etc., has gotten us to where we are today, starting with the New Deal. Unless you want to go back to the Woodrow Wilson administration, one which would not have come into existence but for Teddy Roosevelt's failed third party (!!!) attempt at the presidency in 1912. Sorry, but the people who voted (with "clean" hands) for TR in 1912 and Ross Perot in '92 succeeded in birthing two regrettable Democratic regimes.

jhay78;868866 wrote:My impression from the debate the other night was that Ron Paul was saying "trust them" and "completely write them off". Just sayin'.

The inherent flaw of a debate is that it asks the featured speakers to essentially shoot from the hip. Paul has clarified since then that that was not at all what he implied. They are obviously a threat to SOME degree ... just not nearly to the degree that Perry (I think?) was suggesting. The sky is not falling just because Iran is able to have the same technology as China, India, France, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, the US, and probably a country or two that I'm forgetting.

jhay78;868866 wrote:I'm not at the point of abandoning all things Republican just yet. I'm encouraged by certain attempts at reforming the party from within, and taking advantage of the inherent benefits of the two-party system. I think I can point to a few positive things enacted by certain Republican administrations over the past 150 years without being a complete partisan hack.

Oh, I'm not abandoning it yet, either. I think that the majority of Republicans are not truly "Republican" in the traditional sense of the word. It would seem, however, that all congressmen are currently in support of spending us into oblivion. The difference is merely on what they wish to spend, be it countless unsustainable social programs or multiple wars costing us over a trillion a year.

Some of these "reformed" Republicans will talk about smaller government and less spending, but they only seem keen on cutting spending and government where they are still comfortable.

Show me a current Republican who has been consistent in the plight to cut government spending without the sacred cows (various social programs, the military, etc.). THAT and only that is a Republican I would get behind.

jhay78;868866 wrote:I think people picking the candidate who would most likely provide for (not promote) their welfare in the form of entitlements, etc., has gotten us to where we are today, starting with the New Deal. Unless you want to go back to the Woodrow Wilson administration, one which would not have come into existence but for Teddy Roosevelt's failed third party (!!!) attempt at the presidency in 1912. Sorry, but the people who voted (with "clean" hands) for TR in 1912 and Ross Perot in '92 succeeded in birthing two regrettable Democratic regimes.

They did nothing of the sort. Those who voted for them birthed them, plain and simple. This idea that if I'm not supporting whatever Republican talking head has been on the ballot in the past, then I might as well be voting for the Democrat ticket is asinine. In the rules of logic, I believe it's called a false dichotomy.

For most of the people on the stump for the GOP ticket, I'm willing to bet that they would treat the military like a sacred cow, making little to no cuts if possible.

The parties, anymore, are starkly similar in result. The difference, as I said, was what they spend too much of our money on, and not whether or not they'll spend too much of our money.

O-Trap;868877 wrote:For most of the people on the stump for the GOP ticket, I'm willing to bet that they would treat the military like a sacred cow, making little to no cuts if possible.

The parties, anymore, are starkly similar in result. The difference, as I said, was what they spend too much of our money on, and not whether or not they'll spend too much of our money.

I'm OK with erring on the side of the Constitution and a strong national defense, but I agree with you that cuts are needed. I would argue that entitlements (which are more questionable constitutionally) bear more guilt for our current fiscal crisis than defense, and we all know which party invented SS, Medicare, and the others. Republicans are to blame for cowering to the media's howls of starving kids and throwing grandma off the cliff whenever they even attempt to privatize 1/10th of 1% of any entitlement or reform them in any significant way. They are guilty of accepting the foundation for liberals' arguments and trying to prove they're compassionate, when they should be pounding at the argument with the Constitution.

In fairness, Republicans have to operate with an extra dose of political courage and backbone in the face of unfair media criticism that Democrats NEVER have to deal with. For that reason I'm not yet abandoning them, but I will continue to call them out and hold their feet to the fire and attempt to reform the party from within.

As long as Obama doesn't have a Democrat Congress behind him, he becomes no different than Romney or Perry. None of them are going to cut any significant spending. Obama might cut a little bit of military spending just for show. The Republican might cut a little pork spending just for show. Nothing significant will come of it. None of them are going to get tax cuts through Congress. None of them are going to get entitlement cuts through Congress. None of them are going to make the fundamental changes to our statist, centrally planned economy that are needed.

jhay78;868885 wrote:I'm OK with erring on the side of the Constitution and a strong national defense, but I agree with you that cuts are needed.

If the Constitutions states that the government is to provide for the common defense (read: "the common defense of its own borders and citizens"), why would starting conflicts elsewhere fall under that umbrella? Not everything the US military does can fit under defense. Much of what the military today does is JUST as "porkful" as anything else: unnecessary, and a waste of money, time, and life.

jhay78;868885 wrote:I would argue that entitlements (which are more questionable constitutionally) bear more guilt for our current fiscal crisis than defense, and we all know which party invented SS, Medicare, and the others.

Problem is, the Republicans have enough spending 'planks' in their eyes that they have no business calling out such programs.

jhay78;868885 wrote:Republicans are to blame for cowering to the media's howls of starving kids and throwing grandma off the cliff whenever they even attempt to privatize 1/10th of 1% of any entitlement or reform them in any significant way. They are guilty of accepting the foundation for liberals' arguments and trying to prove they're compassionate, when they should be pounding at the argument with the Constitution.

I agree 100% with that final statement.

jhay78;868885 wrote:In fairness, Republicans have to operate with an extra dose of political courage and backbone in the face of unfair media criticism that Democrats NEVER have to deal with. For that reason I'm not yet abandoning them, but I will continue to call them out and hold their feet to the fire and attempt to reform the party from within.

I certainly don't have a problem with reforming the party. Hell, the guy I'm voting for is attempting to do that. What we need is for Republicans to actually be what Republicans were back before all this foolishness.

Cleveland Buck;868887 wrote:As long as Obama doesn't have a Democrat Congress behind him, he becomes no different than Romney or Perry. None of them are going to cut any significant spending. Obama might cut a little bit of military spending just for show. The Republican might cut a little pork spending just for show. Nothing significant will come of it. None of them are going to get tax cuts through Congress. None of them are going to get entitlement cuts through Congress. None of them are going to make the fundamental changes to our statist, centrally planned economy that are needed.

MF this!!!

Cleveland Buck;868887 wrote:As long as Obama doesn't have a Democrat Congress behind him, he becomes no different than Romney or Perry. None of them are going to cut any significant spending. Obama might cut a little bit of military spending just for show. The Republican might cut a little pork spending just for show. Nothing significant will come of it. None of them are going to get tax cuts through Congress. None of them are going to get entitlement cuts through Congress. None of them are going to make the fundamental changes to our statist, centrally planned economy that are needed.

You are unfortunately correct.

O-trap - I thought about copying and responding to each of your points, but I've not got the time. I'll try to summarize and not go beyond 10,000 characters

1. I could argue that the U.S. is holding Israel back from doing far more damaging things. I'll go back to the first Iraq/Kuwait war in the early 90's. Hussein was lobbing scud missiles into Israel in a direct attempt to engage them. Turns out U.S. diplomacy held back their anger and their revenge-at-all-costs mentality that is so pervasive in their military. If we aren't there, who's going to hold them back? There is no doubt we can't turn our backs on them, as much as you want to let them fend for themselves.

2. I agree the U.S. shouldn't be the world's policeman. But I also believe we must be involved where the most diabolical countries would love nothing better than to eradicate Americans. This would include the Iranians and the North Koreans. Simply walking away and claiming they'll self-implode due to economic reasons is folly and naive. We bankrupted the USSR in the 80's and they are still around. Putin is even getting into the saber-rattling mode as he feels empowered by Obama the eunuch. There will always be nutjobs in charge of countries and they must be dealt with, not swept under the rug simply because they pose no real threat to American shores.

3. Finally, protectionism never works. To claim we can live on our island and not be involved in world affairs is child-like and quite dangerous actually. Ron Paul is as libertarian as they come and this is a central tenet along with legalizing all drugs, but that's another thread. I can agree with him economically, financially, and spiritually, but I can't agree with his view on foreign affairs.

Cleveland Buck;868887 wrote:As long as Obama doesn't have a Democrat Congress behind him, he becomes no different than Romney or Perry. None of them are going to cut any significant spending. Obama might cut a little bit of military spending just for show. The Republican might cut a little pork spending just for show. Nothing significant will come of it. None of them are going to get tax cuts through Congress. None of them are going to get entitlement cuts through Congress. None of them are going to make the fundamental changes to our statist, centrally planned economy that are needed.

To your point, I can foresee a Republican president, with a solid majority in the House, and 59 seats in the Senate, falling prey to filibusters and all sorts of Democratic obstructionist parliamentary tactics. If there's one thing Democrats have proven better than Republicans at, it's obstructing someone else's agenda (see GW Bush's attempted judicial appointments). Then again, they weren't about to be blamed for a possible default and the ensuing chaotic consequences (real or mythical).

But "not getting something through Congress" (at least of any significance) would not be the fault of a potential Perry or Romney presidency, any more than we could expect Perfect Candidate X to walk on water and suddenly get something through Congress like a Balanced Budget amendment.

O-Trap;868898 wrote:If the Constitutions states that the government is to provide for the common defense (read: "the common defense of its own borders and citizens"), why would starting conflicts elsewhere fall under that umbrella? Not everything the US military does can fit under defense. Much of what the military today does is JUST as "porkful" as anything else: unnecessary, and a waste of money, time, and life.

I agree. The Department of Defense has turned into the de facto Department of Offense, with Homeland Security taking more of the defense responsibilities.

BGFalcons82;869016 wrote:1. I could argue that the U.S. is holding Israel back from doing far more damaging things. I'll go back to the first Iraq/Kuwait war in the early 90's. Hussein was lobbing scud missiles into Israel in a direct attempt to engage them. Turns out U.S. diplomacy held back their anger and their revenge-at-all-costs mentality that is so pervasive in their military. If we aren't there, who's going to hold them back? There is no doubt we can't turn our backs on them, as much as you want to let them fend for themselves.

Honestly, if other countries continue to peck at them, I wouldn't blame them for getting angry. Moreover, I don't think it's our position to hold them back. Quite possibly, if they were free to flex their military muscles a little bit and show what they can do, other neighboring countries might take a more benevolent approach toward them out of sheer self-preservation.

If Israel and its military is the bear of the region, and someone (Iran, the Palestinians, Syria, whoever) decides to poke the bear, why shouldn't we allow those countries to handle their own affairs?

And again, I'm not literally saying to abandon them and cut ties. But we've spent long enough invested (in more ways than one) in their military and general national success. We've equipped them to be a power, but now we're not allowing them to? That doesn't make any sense at all.

We should treat them like any other ally. Be willing to assist when requested. Otherwise, let them be. They've been a sovereign country for long enough that they shouldn't need training wheels anymore. Let them be sovereign, and let them make the choice to ask when they want help.

Otherwise, let's quit asserting our help.

BGFalcons82;869016 wrote:2. I agree the U.S. shouldn't be the world's policeman. But I also believe we must be involved where the most diabolical countries would love nothing better than to eradicate Americans.

The problem is that we are choosing who is "diabolical" and who is not. Whether we like to think so or not, everyone out there believes themselves to be the "good guy." It's funny, because a good portion of the world considers the US to be the "diabolical" one trying to subject the rest of the world to its own authority. To what authority does one appeal to invalidate their view, yet validate our own?

BGFalcons82;869016 wrote:This would include the Iranians and the North Koreans. Simply walking away and claiming they'll self-implode due to economic reasons is folly and naive. We bankrupted the USSR in the 80's and they are still around. Putin is even getting into the saber-rattling mode as he feels empowered by Obama the eunuch. There will always be nutjobs in charge of countries and they must be dealt with, not swept under the rug simply because they pose no real threat to American shores.

Why? Let them stew. If hostility remains impotent, what danger does it pose? Just because North Korea, Iran, etc. want to do something, does that mean that they can? Moreover, does that mean that they will even if they can? Of course not.

By what authority do we seize the task of "dealing with" these nutjobs actively? If the nutjob stays out of our lives, why should we care that he exists? Who gave us that right or that responsibility? If Ahmadinejad is over there sucking his thumb, hugging a couple bombs bombs, rocking back and forth, and reciting that he hates America, what harm does that do us?

Until a nation (not a fringe religious sect, mind you) actively attempts to attack our nation, it's not a matter of defense, which is what the Constitution provides for the Federal government to do. No more. You say you agree that we shouldn't be policing the world, but that's exactly what we're doing with this.

BGFalcons82;869016 wrote:3. Finally, protectionism never works. To claim we can live on our island and not be involved in world affairs is child-like and quite dangerous actually. Ron Paul is as libertarian as they come and this is a central tenet along with legalizing all drugs, but that's another thread. I can agree with him economically, financially, and spiritually, but I can't agree with his view on foreign affairs.

Complete isolation is not at all a tenet of Libertarianism, as it would completely go against the Libertarian view on trade. Not a single Libertarian would suggest we should shut out the world and live in our own bubble. They WOULD, however, suggest that military is not for the purpose of spreading the American ideal, nor is it for the purpose of trying to babysit any other country. Whether we believe it or not, there is no God-given or Constitution-given right that suggests America has the authority to regulate the sovereignty of other nations, provided that said nations are not acting in hostility toward America (key word being "acting"). If Iran becomes an aggressor, I'll be the first person to agree that we ought to engage them. Until then, however, we have no grounds for engaging them.

This is all, of course, aside from the fact that our current foreign policy is not a financially viable option either.

In short, the actions you're supporting are: (a) outside the provision of the Constitution, and (b) too expensive for what we can afford.

jhay78;869032 wrote:I agree. The Department of Defense has turned into the de facto Department of Offense, with Homeland Security taking more of the defense responsibilities.

Bingo. It's funny that you bring that up, because lately, I've been referring to our DOD as the Department of Offense. It's absurd how much military action the US is involved in, given the fact that not a single country at the moment poses a serious threat to the safety or sovereignty of United States land.

Anyone that thinks we are "fighting for our freedoms" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. or Whateveritstan has nary a clue. Our military expanse and empire approach is as UnAmerican as it gets...and as unConstitutional as it gets.

The most decorated Marine of his time....had it right. Took him 35 years of toiling for the state to do so....but getting it right is something that he finally was able to do. Funny how the M.I.C. has kept his name out of the American history books.

RIP Major General.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Cleveland Buck;866022 wrote:Ron Paul isn't an idiot, hell I have no doubt that he is the most intelligent guy in Washington. I'm sure he's well aware of Iran's impact in the region. He's also well aware that we are the United States of America, not the United States of the Middle East or the United States of the World. Paul pointed out after the debates last week that Iran hasn't invaded another country in 1,000 years. They have no navy or air force. Hell they have to import gasoline because they can't refine their oil. And most importantly, we aren't going to stop them from having a nuclear weapon unless we invade and occupy the country, which we can not afford and the American people would never go for. If we develop our own energy and drive down the price of oil, there is a better chance that the Iranian people will force their government to stop working on the weapon so they can eat rather than us stopping their work on the weapon by any means available to us.

Exactly. Anyone thinking that Iran poses a threat to anyone needs their head examined. Rick Sanitarium is absolutely nuts...and Ron Paul rightfully, put him in his place.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0816424.pdf

Footwedge;869359 wrote:Exactly. Anyone thinking that Iran poses a threat to anyone needs their head examined. Rick Sanitarium is absolutely nuts...and Ron Paul rightfully, put him in his place.

Anyone that thinks Iran is not a threat to anyone is being naive. Iran is the strongest it has been since the Revolution. This is not the same Iran of the last 1000 years. This is a different regime, with internal problems, but loves to mislead and trump up its armed forces.
Also, Iran does destablize the region through its support, actively, with Hezbollah and Syria, as well as influences in Bahrain, Oman, and wants to overthrow the Sunni based power in the region, the Saudis. Iran also sees Iraq as its proxy and is waiting for us to leave so it can influence it even more.
Once Iran starts to mobilize, it will seek to expand its influence, overt or covertly.
This has the same impact as Iraq in the late 80s, it could lead to the region be really on the edge. Since the world's economy is really impacted by the region, this would not be good.
The next President is realyl going to have to find a way to deal with Iran and its influence over the region, and ensure that it does not lead to a massive arms build up or a nuclear arms race.

O-Trap;869310 wrote:The problem is that we are choosing who is "diabolical" and who is not. Whether we like to think so or not, everyone out there believes themselves to be the "good guy." It's funny, because a good portion of the world considers the US to be the "diabolical" one trying to subject the rest of the world to its own authority. To what authority does one appeal to invalidate their view, yet validate our own?

I feel comfortable, for the most part, with traditional American definitions of "diabolical" nations and ideologies. I'm sure the Nazis and Soviets both viewed America as diabolical, and we surely tagged them with the same label. Both sides can't be right; we can't just split the difference and expect everything to be peachy. It's OK to go Reagan and use "evil empire" rhetoric every once in awhile.

Until a nation (not a fringe religious sect, mind you) actively attempts to attack our nation, it's not a matter of defense, which is what the Constitution provides for the Federal government to do. No more. You say you agree that we shouldn't be policing the world, but that's exactly what we're doing with this.

That's the problem with 21st century methods of defending America. Those who want to harm us don't carry the banner of any nation-state and don't have anyone's flag sewn onto their apparel. Nationalism does not garner the uppermost level of loyalty from these people, the leadership of Iran included. The ideology of those who wish harm upon America and the West existed over 1000 years before the signing of the US Constitution, and I don't think the Barbary Pirates were pissed at US foreign policy or our assistance to Israel (which didn't exist in 1800).

These guys were a problem from the moment America was founded:

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Jefferson and Adams inquired as to "the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", to which Jefferson reported the ambassador's reply:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:Anyone that thinks Iran is not a threat to anyone is being naive. Once Iran starts to mobilize, it will seek to expand its influence, overt or covertly.

The next President is realyl going to have to find a way to deal with Iran and its influence over the region, and ensure that it does not lead to a massive arms build up or a nuclear arms race.

That's why a potential Ron Paul presidency would make me nervous. But then again that's what we Islamophobes are good at

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:Anyone that thinks Iran is not a threat to anyone is being naive. Iran is the strongest it has been since the Revolution. This is not the same Iran of the last 1000 years. This is a different regime, with internal problems, but loves to mislead and trump up its armed forces.
Also, Iran does destablize the region through its support, actively, with Hezbollah and Syria, as well as influences in Bahrain, Oman, and wants to overthrow the Sunni based power in the region, the Saudis. Iran also sees Iraq as its proxy and is waiting for us to leave so it can influence it even more.
Once Iran starts to mobilize, it will seek to expand its influence, overt or covertly.
This has the same impact as Iraq in the late 80s, it could lead to the region be really on the edge. Since the world's economy is really impacted by the region, this would not be good.
The next President is realyl going to have to find a way to deal with Iran and its influence over the region, and ensure that it does not lead to a massive arms build up or a nuclear arms race.

Iran poses no threat at all to the US. They have no interest in having their country, with their 70 million citizens incinerated by Israel. All the rhetoric beyond that is bullshit. It's a shame that the saber rattling in your department is so prevalent.

Honestly, I'm not worried about Iran trying to expand their influence. What are they going to do? They have to buy gasoline from their neighbors. They aren't going to invade them. If they try to invade Israel they would be wiped out. We can have a strong defense by locking down our borders and being more cautious about people we allow into the country. I'm not opposed to keeping some of our bases around the world that are in countries that want us there, but it's about time we let Europe pay for their own military and it's about time we mind our own business for a change. It's possible that if we stay out of everyone's affairs, maybe they won't try to come here and attack us.

jhay78;869652 wrote:I feel comfortable, for the most part, with traditional American definitions of "diabolical" nations and ideologies. I'm sure the Nazis and Soviets both viewed America as diabolical, and we surely tagged them with the same label. Both sides can't be right; we can't just split the difference and expect everything to be peachy. It's OK to go Reagan and use "evil empire" rhetoric every once in awhile.

I certainly disagree. It's natural to feel "comfortable" with the "us-versus-them" pitch, but it's nothing but an old marketing tactic. It has been used to lead throngs of people into doing otherwise completely illogical things.

Both sides cannot be right. You are correct. Both sides CAN, however, be wrong. That is the case in instances like these.

I'm not saying anyone splits anything. I'm saying we prepare ourselves and stay ready to level anyone that tries to attack us, be it nation or other fringe element.

jhay78;869652 wrote:That's the problem with 21st century methods of defending America. Those who want to harm us don't carry the banner of any nation-state and don't have anyone's flag sewn onto their apparel. Nationalism does not garner the uppermost level of loyalty from these people, the leadership of Iran included.

Again you use the term "want to." Iran might "want to" harm a lot of people. They'd swiftly get the proverbial shit kicked out of them if they tried. They're like a pissed off fixed dog. They WANT to be a threat, so there is certainly hostility. They aren't one, though.

jhay78;869652 wrote:The ideology of those who wish harm upon America and the West existed over 1000 years before the signing of the US Constitution, and I don't think the Barbary Pirates were pissed at US foreign policy or our assistance to Israel (which didn't exist in 1800).

I agree. The Barbary pirates were also not a state seeking to preserve its sovereignty (and existence).

Make no mistake, religious radicals are always a group to watch closely. But "watch closely" and "interfere with" are again two different things.

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:Anyone that thinks Iran is not a threat to anyone is being naive.

Given that we're using present tense in this, I would be even more curious what you think they are currently CAPABLE of doing (not what they would WANT to do).

Naturally, they WANT to be a threat, but I want to be a major league baseball player. In the words of the Stones, you can't always get what you want.

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:Iran is the strongest it has been since the Revolution.

Given the lack of any menacing military, the strongest they've been still doesn't seem strong enough to pose any serious threat.

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:This is not the same Iran of the last 1000 years. This is a different regime, with internal problems, but loves to mislead and trump up its armed forces.
Also, Iran does destablize the region through its support, actively, with Hezbollah and Syria, as well as influences in Bahrain, Oman, and wants to overthrow the Sunni based power in the region, the Saudis. Iran also sees Iraq as its proxy and is waiting for us to leave so it can influence it even more.

You bring up an interesting point, but again, just because it wants the influence in all those areas doesn't mean it gets it by default. It has very little to offer, it would seem, to those countries or regions that it would wish to use to spread its influence.

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:Once Iran starts to mobilize, it will seek to expand its influence, overt or covertly.

Okay, the idea of covert influence has some merit. It is not, however, something that I see the US having the authority or responsibility to prevent. This would still be a case of the US trying to restrict the sovereignty of a nation, something we don't have the authority to do, whether or not it would be in our best interest to do so.

ptown_trojans_1;869507 wrote:This has the same impact as Iraq in the late 80s, it could lead to the region be really on the edge. Since the world's economy is really impacted by the region, this would not be good.
The next President is realyl going to have to find a way to deal with Iran and its influence over the region, and ensure that it does not lead to a massive arms build up or a nuclear arms race.

Given that Israel and Pakistan are already equipped with that technology, and they haven't blown themselves to Jannah already, is an encouraging sign that it's not as impending as we might otherwise think. The same Islam that runs Iran also runs the majority of Pakistan.

Footwedge;869346 wrote:Anyone that thinks we are "fighting for our freedoms" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan. or Whateveritstan has nary a clue. Our military expanse and empire approach is as UnAmerican as it gets...and as unConstitutional as it gets.

The most decorated Marine of his time....had it right. Took him 35 years of toiling for the state to do so....but getting it right is something that he finally was able to do. Funny how the M.I.C. has kept his name out of the American history books.

RIP Major General.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Butler (and Eisenhower) were correct about war being a racket. What they said is true not only for the United States but for every elite ruling class controlling military organizations of every nation throughout human history.

There's no question that war creates wealth for a few at the expense of the many. Why do you think German industrialists so easily backed Hitler's rise to power?

It's fun to sit around and wonder what I'll do with my millions when I hit the lottery. It's equally wonderful to think what could have been if we had spent trillions on improving the human condition rather than on killing each other for the benefit of the elite few.

Unfortunately at the end of the day someone else always wins the lottery and the rest of us still have bills to pay.

At the risk of going all "Gibbyesque," I did find the latest Gallup interesting with the head to head matchups against the Big 4 Pubs. Bam no lookee so good.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

fish82;870450 wrote:At the risk of going all "Gibbyesque," I did find the latest Gallup interesting with the head to head matchups against the Big 4 Pubs. Bam no lookee so good.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines%20-%20Politics

Shouldn't even be that close.

I can't imagine how low he'd drop if people actually held him accountable for the job he's done so far.