F-35 is even porkier and worse for you. It's a stealth fighter bomber vertical take off and land hybrid. Sounds like its totally worth $400M a piece. Just what we need 2,500 of when we're already $16,400,000,000,000 in the hole.
This is quite interesting as well as disturbing - Obama is dangerous to all of us!
- Thread starter pinkhamr
- Start Date
Go ahead and bury that head a little deeper! It will be OK!
So we should constantly be involved in "regime change" for every country around the world? That all of the people of these nations that we try and dictate who should lead them and what kind of government they should have shouldn't resent that? Just the mention of the UN coming over here gets all our hackles up; imagine them actually influencing our government, and putting boots on the ground. But those in other countries that rebel are insurgents, and we would be patriots. I don't like any of those nations in the M.E., but I also understand why they'd be pissed at us.
First off - your previous comment about military spending for the GDP is way off. DoD (including overseas operations) is the largest chunk of money we spend in the budget (unless you include Medicare and Medicade in DHHS). Don't get me wrong, DHHS shouldn't have anywhere near that much in the budget, but neither should DoD.
Secondly, my point is more that our meddling overseas has caused more problems than it's cured. Nearly every instance (like 90-ish%) of terrorism on US Soil or against US personnel on foreign soil can be traced back to US operations meddling previously in that country or with those people (whether it's us working with local guerrillas and then betraying them and suddenly labeling them as terrorists, or a stray bomb that hit innocent bystanders, or our intervening in some way/shape/form with foreign affairs - we've caused a lot of this).
Historic facts and logic dictate that our meddling has caused these issues. Where is the proof that "they" would still be here if we hadn't? There is none, because we've never tried it and most likely never will.
It's really a moot point because at present, we've caused so many issues by meddling that if we stopped right now, we'd still have the fallout of all the current "terrorism" for decades.
Quite true but a fact the isolationists consider irrelevant.
Like the obamanation the isolationists figure that if we just leave everyone else alone then they'll leave us alone. That might be true if the good guys were in charge everywhere, might. Unfortunately they aren't. Bad guys see those with a live and let live attitude as weak and will take advantage in any way they can. Other bad guys could care less if one is weak or strong. If you've got something they want they'll try to get it any way they can. And other bad guys who despise the way you live, or the god you worship, or the color of your skin or even that you've got more stuff than they do will try to kill you any way they can.
No matter the type of bad guy being dealt with, in each and every case it is to one's advantage to seek to curtail the bad guy's activities, no matter where he may reside, to preclude him succeeding in his quest to take what he wants from you or to destroy you.
That's just the way it is.
There are good guys and there are bad guys. They've been fighting each other since the 1st hominid picked up a leg bone and bashed in the head of the hominid that stole his mate. It will remain true until the last human being in the universe dies on some far away planet in some far away galaxy at the tentacles of some evil alien monster hell bent on ridding the universe of mankind.
Said nobody in this thread, ever.
Not wanting to stick the country's nose in everyone's business doesn't make someone an isolationist. That's a poor attempt at exaggerating and mis-characterizing their position. Is every other country in the world without foreign bases and active wars an "isolationist"?
F-22 wasnt canceled, fleet was grounded for awhile due to oxygen issues. And I think they put off buying more of them for a bit.
As for minding our own business, we tried that, and the result was Hitler. Dont know about you, but I dont want to take that chance again.
As for minding our own business, we tried that, and the result was Hitler. Dont know about you, but I dont want to take that chance again.
That's not what's being suggested. Minding our own business has nothing to do with being nice.
Hate us enough for our lifestyle to fly planes into WTC? Nah, that kind of hatred comes from a deeper source. How many jihadist attacks were there on Americans prior to 1948?
Goodwin's Law!
Well they damn sure ain't doin' it on their own.....so I mean how else do ya' figure they are gonna' quit screwin' around and accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour?
For the sake of argument let's say it has been all above board and well intended....how much do ya' figure the concept of "picking yer battles" comes into play in those scenarios?I mean, do ya' figure maybe some situations aren't outright ignored/disregarded with ill intent but rather there hasn't been a practical way to resolve them without the possibility of creating a huge problem much too dangerous to risk?
AND
Isn't that...uh, I don't wanna' say "largely the reason" because I don't know to what degree I'd be bullshitting myself, but isn't that some of the reason countries have been known to fund "revolutionaries" in other places?
If you mean, what's in it for us, yes. If you mean, what can we reasonable expect to accomplish, no. If one closely examines America's historical relationships with other regimes and groups of people, we have a tendency to pick who we help based on ideology rather than human rights. We also have a tendency to leave fighting factions we initially support before the deed is seen through to completion. While we're saluting the flag and waxing poetic on baseball and apple pie, others around the world are looking at piles of dirty American laundry and leftover party trash. The don't "hate us for our freedom", they hate us for our "do as I say, not as I do" tendencies. As an American, I expect better of my country. I find it unacceptable to do what's in our best interests when it happens to also be morally and ethically wrong.
Sure, trot out the "isolationist" attack when no one said to shut in like hermits. Apparently being non-isolationist means you have to attack everyone who looks sideways at us before they can say "boo"?
Similar threads
