You have 15 minutes to convince me how to vote

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
3)Newt was not discredited. He was brought up on ethics charges and got a wee bit power crazy.

And as part of his Settlement, he vowed now to seek retribution on those who brought the charges...and was immediately thereafore taped plotting revenge.

[Harry Tuttle]

See the part on "wee bit power crazy". He did a great job around 1994, but after that, well, look out.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

3)Newt was not discredited. He was brought up on ethics charges and got a wee bit power crazy.

Newt lost power that's what mattered. New leadership gained the reigns of the GOP and Newts ideas were left on the wayside. And I think his ideas certainly did get discredited as a result of his fall not as the cause of his fall. It's guilt by association.

[Dinner]

The last thing we need is more military spending. We're already out spending the next 25 largest military powers combined. We're just wasting money without any results.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The last thing we need is more military spending. We're already out spending the next 25 largest military powers combined. We're just wasting money without any results.

I completely agree. military adventures don't pay. they cost big time. We should maintain military spending for training and research and start retreating on all other fronts of military spending, starting with a withdrawal from iraq as soon as we can do so without screwing over any coalition stragglers who are still there.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Newt lost power that's what mattered. New leadership gained the reigns of the GOP and Newts ideas were left on the wayside. And I think his ideas certainly did get discredited as a result of his fall not as the cause of his fall. It's guilt by association.

I agree.

The last thing we need is more military spending. We're already out spending the next 25 largest military powers combined. We're just wasting money without any results.

The other 25 aren't in a war, aren't sole superpowers, nor are they as gracious as we are in war. There's a limit, for sure, but I'd rather go with full funding in the near future.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The last thing we need is more military spending. We're already out spending the next 25 largest military powers combined. We're just wasting money without any results.

True.
There does come a time when increasing the ability to decimate any army that openly stands in a field of battle against you becomes moot.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

The other 25 aren't in a war, aren't sole superpowers, nor are they as gracious as we are in war. There's a limit, for sure, but I'd rather go with full funding in the near future.

What's so great about being a superpower? Are Canadians really much less prosperous than us? We aren't really at war either we're heavily involved in intervening in two low level civil wars. We should try to gracefully extract ourselves from as many costly theaters as possible and rely on our collective defense treaties, general diplomacy and our naval supremacy to avert a world war. Regional wars that don't involve our treaty allies should not be our military concern. Instead we should join our allies in hand wringing and making diplomatic noises about such regional wars.

For these purposes our military is hugely oversized and therefore monstrously overpriced.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Republicans haven't been the fiscally responsible party in a long time. They're as bad, if not worse, than the Dems. It's really frustrating.

Where did I say that the Republicans have had small budgets under Bush?

All I am comparing is Hillary's and Obama's budgets to Huckabee, Romney and McCain.

The difference is an order of magnitude difference, which is unbelievable.

Think about it for a moment. You say the budgets now are too huge, Hillary and Obama want to add another hundred and 50 billion on top of that. During peacetime!

That's a mountain of pork.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle



The other 25 aren't in a war, aren't sole superpowers, nor are they as gracious as we are in war.

I am sure there are countries active in Iraq or Afghanistan that would dispute points one and three.

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


There's a limit, for sure, but I'd rather go with full funding in the near future.

BUt what is full funding? I believe that a country should have a "capable military" but I think that capability should be measured against the likely needs and requirements-- Money spent on better body armor, armored vehicles, nuclear materials detection, Special forces etc may be well applied to likely enemies. Ditto for close-support helicopters.

BUt the USN seems to be overkill, as a for instance.

[Harry Tuttle]

"Instead we should join our allies in hand wringing and making diplomatic noises about such regional wars."

No thanks. There's enough sound pollution in this world.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
"Instead we should join our allies in hand wringing and making diplomatic noises about such regional wars."

No thanks. There's enough sound pollution in this world.

They'll feel bad if we don't.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Flubber
BUt what is full funding? I believe that a country should have a "capable military" but I think that capability should be measured against the likely needs and requirements-- Money spent on better body armor, armored vehicles, nuclear materials detection, Special forces etc may be well applied to likely enemies. Ditto for close-support helicopters.

BUt the USN seems to be overkill, as a for instance.

Well that's what I mean. I wouldn't say that some more Seawolf subs are needed at the moment. I'm talking about full funding for the current conflicts we're involved in.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Geronimo
They'll feel bad if we don't.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


Well that's what I mean. I wouldn't say that some more Seawolf subs are needed at the moment. I'm talking about full funding for the current conflicts we're involved in.

too damn expensive. If Iraq collapses into total civil war after we and our allies pull out, sure it will have huge economic consequences, but at least we can adjust to the underlying problem of oil scarcity instead of trying to maintain a huge festering expensive bandaid on that nasty gaping wound. I might agree with staying involved in Afghanistan if only because our prospects there are much better and we have better support from our allies.