Re: Post #23 and LBJ's "War on Poverty" "...it was working pretty well..." Taxcutter says: Say what? There is more poverty today than in 1964. Certainly more widespread.
Ever hear of throwing good money after bad? If the Pope wants to set US foreign and military policy, he can come over here and run for office. Until then, I don't give a damn what he thinks.
Well, I do care about what he thinks and that settles the issue of the Just War Doctrine for me. We should not be bombing other nations if they haven't attacked us.
I am not going to condone pro-active war. I believe we should only engage in defensive wars when necessary. I also believe that we should have strong systems of defense in place that thwart any attempted attack.
Well, I am sure the Marines would do a wonderful job at defending our nation if our nation needed to be defended. The Marines do seem to be an elite part of the Armed Forces.
There are just not enough of them however. The entire Corps (including Reserves) is only 4 Divisions. We landed more troops on the beach of Normandy in 1 day then the entire Corps has. In addition, the Corps is not a Heavy Force. No real air defense, no missile defense, very light on armor and armored assets.
It should not be a shock to many in here that the USS Zumwalt leaves me very underwhelmed. Much like the Type 45 of the UK, I see this as a ship without a mission. 80 missile cells, to be shared between Tomahawk, SUBROC and Sea Sparrow missiles. And a "Long Range 5" gun". OK, so whoop-de-do, the gun has a range of 60-80 miles. But it is still a freaking 155mm gun with a magazine of no more then 100 rounds, with a 24 pound bursting charge. I see this ship as a gigantic waste. It's bunkers are so freaking small, I can see it having to dash in and out of combat constantly in order to replenish it's ammo. And unless it is operating entirely by itself, what good is all that stealth anyways? Who cares if you have a stealth destroyer, if the ships it is protecting (carrier, Amphib) is throwing off a RADAR cross-section of the Empire State Building?
You know my views on the Type 45 and that I think you are wrong to say it is a ship without a mission. Of course you are partly right, it has no mission until the carriers are doing sea trials. I think the Type 45 has been sold short by budget cuts so it only has 48 cells, not enough for air defence. However it has room for upto 72 cells, which is just enough for air defence if you include the Sea ceptor missiles and that it has no land-attack or ASW missiles. There is no doubt however that the Type 45 combat systems and missiles are much much better than the Type 42. I still think the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwan and US all have better destroyers for air defence, but that doesn't matter because the UK isn't going to be fighting there. The Type 45 is the best air destroyer in Europe, that is what matters. We aren't the global power we once were and we no longer need ships to meet that requirement.
Did you know that the CIA has been destabilizing the Middle East since its inception, and that the actions of Gaddafi and Hussein did not occur in some kind of pro-western vacuum?
We aren't really a defense force. Just ask Major General Smedley Butler... [video=youtube;F3_EXqJ8f-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0[/video]
The last time the Marines were truly needed to defend vital American interests, Thomas Jefferson was the President!
You mean Smedley Butler, the politician who first left the Mareins after a mental breakdown in 1908? The same Smedley Butler who created an international incident after publicly gossiping about a foreign head of state and almost saw him court-martialed? The same Smedley Butler who took a 2 year leave of absence from the Corps to hold a political law enforcement position in Philadelphia? Who tried to stay longer, but was ordered back to service by the President? And was forced to resign when he went to the press saying he intended to defy that order? The same Smedley Butler who resigned from the Corps after being passed over as Commandant? The same Smedley Butler, from a long time Philadelphia political family, including his father US Representative Thomas Butler and grandfather US Representative Smedley Darlington? The same Smedley Butler who lied about his age to get a commission in the Marines, because of his father's influence? The same Smedley Butler who was a high ranking official in the Veterans of Foreign Wars? And finally, the same Smedley Butler who was supposedly told by an NKVD operative (NKVD was the fore- runner of the KGB) that for his part he would be named the leader of the American Legion? As an FYI, until after WWII, the American Legion and VFW were bitter rivals, with members often starting fights between each other and you could belong to only one or the other, absolutely never both. The same Smedley Butler who frequently said how much he detested President Roosevelt? And who blamed him for most of the problems of the country? The same Smedley Butler who after the "Business Plot" completely disappeared from the public eye, disgraced from his falling for a couple of conmen, and died a few years later? Now don't get me wrong, as a Marine myself, he is part of the Pantheon of "Marine Greats", right up there with John Basilone and Dan Dailey. But we pretty much all agree that the old man was crazy towards the end of his life. How about keeping the propaganda out, and stick to the facts and the topic at hand, eh?
Assuming all of this is true (I don't see any sources or citations in your rant), it has absolutely no relevance to the veracity of his claims concerning his role as an agent of American imperialism. He fought in all those places and all the corporations he mentioned benefited directly from the intervention of the US military in each theater where he fought. I'm sorry to burst your bubble like this, but ever since the progressive movement came into power during the late 1800's, the US military has been nothing more than the pawn of imperialists, dying by the millions so that an elite few could benefit from the carnage and power-shifts.
Yes I know the British has mich to do with it aswell. We tryed harder than anybody to get Gaddafi out of power. We in the end were able to do so because of Gaddafi being stupid and making dumb speeches and wrong actions. I remember having arguments with people in 2011 about why we were going into Libya, I am sorry to burst your bubble but it had nothing to do with oil or business interests. It was just about repaying Gaddafi for what he did. I for one am glad he is gone even though it has caused other problems in the region and Chinese built weapons getting into the hands of terrorist who attacked the oil plant in Alergia and Libya has a very weak government. That could have been sorted with EU backing of the Libyan government with ground forces, but that doesn't look likely and we are better off our, unless the French want to send in the Legion. All the problems the US has now in the middle east are because it is unable to control the system the British left behind.
This guy sound like a rubbish verison of Winston Churchill from what Mushroom says. I do agree though about some of the war, but not all of them. I also agree about the Progessive era in the US being bad. Much like the same that happened in the UK about the same time with Lloyd George and others. They are looked on a great leaders, but left my country in the (*)(*)(*)(*)ter to be saved by another great Churchill.
The US has problems in the middle east because the US installed and supported merciless dictarships is loads of countries. From selling antrax to Saddam Hussein, to giving billions to Mubarak, to training Osama bin Laden, to ousting the elected government of Iran to install a Shah etc etc etc. It's all rather bad to down right criminal behavior from the US. And it did kick the US square in the nuts besides that it caused the deaths of 100.000's of people. And the amount of Americans held responsible for that still is zero. So those people in the middle east are not exactly happy about that neo colonial behavior.
ROFL! Instead of trying to attack me, why not do a simple little research yourself, eh? But I love reading between the lines of what you just said. "Even if he was batshot crazy, it does not mean he was not wrong!" This is known as standing by your source no matter what, simply because he or she supports your position.
Old Smedley was hoping to be able to turn his military experience (and his Medal of Honor times 2) into political positions. He held a couple even while in the Marines. He wanted to be like his father and grandfather, but he pretty much made himself look like an idiot every time by getting himself fired. Experts are undecided in how much of the "Business Plot" was Smedley actually not understanding what was going on, or how much was an attempt by himself to cast himself as a hero and catapult him into the political forum. Either way, it did not matter. The plot was so obviously idiotic, that nobody took it seriously. And both him and it were dismissed from any further consideration.
Well then I am sure that the other parts of the Armed Forces could take part in defending our nation were we under attack.
Why will you not reply to my comment in a meaningful way? If you disagree with me then reply in a meaningful way which I can respond to. There is no sense in making meaningless replies.
When was the last time the US came under attack, I mean the mainland from another country? The US can't be invaded because there is thousands of miles of water sitting between it and its possible attackers. They have no chance of getting to the US because of the US navy, air force and marines stopping them from doing so. I laugh so much when people say the US should cut defence spending because it has no threat, because that is the point. As soon as there are threats you have a greater problem. I don't know why so many people find this so hard to comprehend, but they do. Troops, training and pay are much easier to cut than aircraft carriers, fighter jets and tanks, so they are cut first. It takes 3 months to train and equip a soldier and costs a couple hundred thousand dollars. It takes a couple of weeks to build a tank, a couple months to build a fighter, but they cost millions of dollars as do the crews, so which would you cut just to build all over again when a threat comes?
Maybe because your pithy one line sentence did not deserve much more consideration. And although William Walker did a good job in saying what I think, let me be a bit more specific. Yes, the US is not seriously threatened itself, mostly by 2 oceans, then by having a strong military. It is that very strength that is it's best defense. First some invader would have to build up an invasion force, then cross the ocean. And then it will have to fight the strongest industrial nation on the planet on it's home soil. And I am not just bragging. We have shown many times in the last century (WWII, Manhattan Project, Space Race) that when this country puts it's mind and will to it, it can totally transform it's industrial base to do whatever it needs in a short amount of time. Yes, we bicker and fight with each other, and everybody has their own idea of how to do things. But when threatened, we have shown an amazing ability to toss all of that aside to work for "the greater good". Now back to the defense itself. Our two strongest forces in this are the Navy and Air Force. We have the strongest Navy in the world for just this purpose, to keep any invader as far from our shores as possible. We learned a very big lesson in the War of 1812, when our Navy had degraded to a mere shell, and both France and England walked all over us. And it was a lesson we have not forgotten. But without that Navy, our shores are vulnerable, to invasion or raids. Few nations are going to risk a raid in the modern era, knowing that it is likely they will do little damage, and loose their raid force in the attempt. And because of air travel, we need a strong Air Force. And that we have, with supersonic fighters to intercept incoming aircraft, bombers to strike back, and transports to move huge amounts of equipment and personnel from one place to another. Even if an invader struck say Newport Beach, Oregon, we could have divisions of soldiers on the ground nearby within days. But those Soldiers and Marines are not going to be much good without supplies, once again the Air Force goes to work. Trust me, when I say I can go on for days about logistics, strategy, and how forces operate (alone and together). But when all you do is toss off little one liners, you can't seriously expect me to put any real effort into such a response, knowing you will just sniff and toss off another one-liner and expect me to take you seriously. So when you want a real discussion, feel free to let me know. If you want to toss off one-liners and expect serious responses, I will only respond with as much effort goes into your posts. Respectfully, Mushroom
Gaddafi is out because he was planning to unite Africa under a gold standard. He had ever been an obstacle to western imperialism in Africa and the Middle East and he paid the ultimate price for it. No, it's because our federal government has been sowing chaos in the Middle East for decades and they hate us justifiably. The CIA is how virtually everyone in the Middle East and Africa views Americans and that is very, very bad for our national security. All the hatred that is directed towards us as a people is entirely caused by the federal government's subversion of Middle Eastern culture and governance. Americans are living a fantasy, believing that they attack us because of our culture. That is so ridiculous. A lot Muslims secretly love western culture. When I was in Iraq, the people tried to mimic western technology and entertainment in virtually every regard. Hollywood has done more to win hearts and minds than our government ever could. The strength of our culture is actually a bulwark against terrorism. It's our century-long campaign of imperialism that has caused all this hatred and resentment.
