74novaman wrote:Since we have the ability using carrier based fighters, US based bombers like the B2, etc to hit anywhere we need to within 24 hours, we can simply close up shop on most of our foreign bases.
They're still good to have as staging areas for infantry, etc. Bombers suck at occupying territory.
Lease them and any non-secret facilities on them back to the host country while maintaining the extraterritoriality and a clause in the lease providing for essentially an emergency short-notice eviction. Also maintain a small emergency/security crew to protect any sensitive toys that can't be packed up and taken home, and to handle emergency operations. (i.e. US plane making an emergency landing for repairs, initial prep work for the above-mentioned eviction, canary for judging the host nation's intentions toward us, etc.) That way, it's all still there if we need it, but at a tiny fraction of the cost of a fully staffed base.
texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.
On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.
texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.
On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.
Opt-out? so no using the interstate highway system, no public hospitals, reduced police and no military. that sounds great Ron
American by birth Texan by the grace of God
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
I personally prefer more of a tit-for-tat approach to Military forces overseas and the issue of Foreign Aid.
The US offers Foreign Aid only to countries that somehow "aid" us in return. We do not give any Foreign Aid to countries unilaterally. I do not believe in Tax-payer funded Altruism.
If a nation wants our forces on its soil and pays to keep them there (example: Japan), we do it. It gives us Strategic options, different venues for training and the ability to interact with Allied forces.
Get out and stay out of anyplace else.
If we get attacked. We retaliate hard. If bad guys hide behind someone's Burkha, hammer that Burkha along with the bad guy. It is my belief that if a country is going to tolerate/harbor/provide succor for an enemy than that country is also an enemy. Collateral damage and innocent civilians are a casualty of war. Believe you me if a country got the idea that they would suffer brutal and precise attacks for tolerating bad folks in their country that attack us, that country would do one of two things: Attack us, or evict the bad guys. Either way, we know what we are facing.
/rant off
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
texasmusic wrote:
I think his policy would work if and only if we still maintained the threat of swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked. He needs to be prepared to leave a place looking like 1946 Germany (or 16th century Germany) if someone breaches our borders again.
On Stossel last week, Ron Paul was reminded of his CPAC speech, where he said we should just pay 10% to the gov't as tax, and then "opt out" of all gov't services. When asked about how one would opt out of national defense, he basically said the Second Amendment was "all we needed." So I guess the "swift and violent retaliation if we are attacked" you speak of must be all of us firing our 1911's and AR's into the air and hoping the rounds travel thousands of miles to reign death and destruction on our attackers? Who is going to pay for an Army, Navy and Air Force needed for a strong and deterring national defense? The man makes no sense in this area.
That's why I had that if in there. I don't know the guys full stance on everything so i'm probing the waters to find out. A national military needs to be kept up. 2A does not do enough to provide for the common defense I agree.
not sure if "probing the waters" is an actual phrase but it sounds cool so i'm coining it
I personally prefer more of a tit-for-tat approach to Military forces overseas and the issue of Foreign Aid.
The US offers Foreign Aid only to countries that somehow "aid" us in return. We do not give any Foreign Aid to countries unilaterally. I do not believe in Tax-payer funded Altruism.
If a nation wants our forces on its soil and pays to keep them there (example: Japan), we do it. It gives us Strategic options, different venues for training and the ability to interact with Allied forces.
Get out and stay out of anyplace else.
If we get attacked. We retaliate hard. If bad guys hide behind someone's Burkha, hammer that Burkha along with the bad guy. It is my belief that if a country is going to tolerate/harbor/provide succor for an enemy than that country is also an enemy. Collateral damage and innocent civilians are a casualty of war. Believe you me if a country got the idea that they would suffer brutal and precise attacks for tolerating bad folks in their country that attack us, that country would do one of two things: Attack us, or evict the bad guys. Either way, we know what we are facing.
/rant off
And no quarter shall be requested or granted
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam (AMDG) It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
74novaman wrote:Since we have the ability using carrier based fighters, US based bombers like the B2, etc to hit anywhere we need to within 24 hours, we can simply close up shop on most of our foreign bases.
They're still good to have as staging areas for infantry, etc. Bombers suck at occupying territory.
That's true but there are some targets that don't need to be occupied and held.
I like your idea about leasing them back to the host country. If the host country won't go for that, they can be semi-mothballed and maintained by a skeleton crew.
We should also expect the other members of the UN security council to pony up equal resources, or we should cut back to match their average contribution, especially in a bad economy like now with a President who claimed he was against using the US military to meddle in foreign country's internal conflicts.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
I am coming into this discussion late but it sounds interesting the little I read here. I have a question. Will Libya become Obama's
Vietnam? What the hell are we doing there besides spending money and helping to protect oil bound for the EU?
When France and Germany asked us to give assistance in Libya they really meant would the US carry the load? We should have told
the EU that we would assist them if the paid the cost for our expenditures. That's right pay the US for our Cruise missiles, our time and
all expenses. It is about time Europe take a stance without the assistance of the US to protect their own interests.
They are quick to condemn the US at every turn.
I also hope the GOP has a candidate to beat Obama in 2012. Personally I would vote for Mickey Mouse if he ran against Obama. Our country
is being destroyed by his administration.
What are we still doing in Afghanistan? Spending money and losing lives for no good purpose.
Whoever said in previous posts that when we commit our military it should be final and decisive. Our Generals should take charge and not our
Congressmen and Senators. Our military should be "turned loose" and do their job and return home. No to nation building
or helping anyone change to a Democracy. It never works!!
The US should through the UN out of the US and use that space for something constructive. It would also ave us a lot of $$$.
We should opt out of NATO as well. Another worthless org. that has bled the US for years without even a "Thank you."
I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.
Born in Brooklyn, NY joined AF in '65 as a 2nd Lt. Went through Naval EOD School in 67. Spent
the next 8 years in and around South East Asia. I was stationed in Texas in '84. Retired from the AF in '85.
Remained in Texas, raised my 2 kids and here I stayed. I hope it Rains!!
RockingRook wrote:I hope we take back our country in 2012 but I will not hold my breath.
On the military/imperial front, Obama isn't really doing anything Bush didn't do.
On a lot of issues Obama is not doing anything different than Bush. Thats why so many like me are sick of him and calling for a primary challenge. Even though it would be futile. He is not Obama so much as Bush 2.0.
American by birth Texan by the grace of God
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-Francois Guisot
