Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1701796" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Umm, not necessarily. We currently pay for the national security of many countries. Quite a few of those are perfectly capable of paying for their own defense. Now in some of those cases, it might be worth what we're paying to keep them there, depending on what we get out of the deal. But in many cases, it's simply a bloated bureaucracy that's become entrenched that keeps us there. In those cases, the countries in question should be given the choice of paying for our services at a rate that would allow us to perhaps turn a profit, but at least break even. Most of them would say hit the road, knowing that we'd come running back to save them should it become necessary. </p><p></p><p>Any treaties involved should be renegotiated, particularly if they're decades old. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Honestly? No. Take a close look at every one of them. Now remove any emotional attachments from your assessment of them. Do any of them have long haul troop transport capability of any significance? Do any of them even remotely have ICBM capability? Do any of them have a geographic location that affords strike capability against the United States, it's territories or protectorates? Have any of them since Saddam's Iraq expressed or acted upon territorial expansionism that would even disrupt the financial interests of the United States (which in and of itself would not be sufficient justification to garrison troops in the region)? </p><p></p><p>An honest assessment would say no to all of those questions. So why would any of those countries be deemed a threat to the safety and security of the United States? </p><p></p><p>We are 15 trillion dollars in debt. We could save trillions of dollars by realigning and reallocating our defense budget priorities. The next time you wring your hands over how dangerous a middle east country is to the safety and security of the United States, take a look at this and consider which one is more dangerous. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.usdebtclock.org/" target="_blank">http://www.usdebtclock.org/</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1701796, member: 1132"] Umm, not necessarily. We currently pay for the national security of many countries. Quite a few of those are perfectly capable of paying for their own defense. Now in some of those cases, it might be worth what we're paying to keep them there, depending on what we get out of the deal. But in many cases, it's simply a bloated bureaucracy that's become entrenched that keeps us there. In those cases, the countries in question should be given the choice of paying for our services at a rate that would allow us to perhaps turn a profit, but at least break even. Most of them would say hit the road, knowing that we'd come running back to save them should it become necessary. Any treaties involved should be renegotiated, particularly if they're decades old. Honestly? No. Take a close look at every one of them. Now remove any emotional attachments from your assessment of them. Do any of them have long haul troop transport capability of any significance? Do any of them even remotely have ICBM capability? Do any of them have a geographic location that affords strike capability against the United States, it's territories or protectorates? Have any of them since Saddam's Iraq expressed or acted upon territorial expansionism that would even disrupt the financial interests of the United States (which in and of itself would not be sufficient justification to garrison troops in the region)? An honest assessment would say no to all of those questions. So why would any of those countries be deemed a threat to the safety and security of the United States? We are 15 trillion dollars in debt. We could save trillions of dollars by realigning and reallocating our defense budget priorities. The next time you wring your hands over how dangerous a middle east country is to the safety and security of the United States, take a look at this and consider which one is more dangerous. :( [url]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Ron Paul vs Romney on Gun Rights
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom