Goverment Gripes

rydnseek wrote:

For those who are disgruntled with corporate practices & business ineptitude, think how much worse it could be if the federal govt. ran it. I hear obama wants to take over all the aftermarket moto tank business, so all transactions for new tanks will go through him. The new tanks will only come in red (blue looks republican), and they will only hold 1/2 gallon to save fuel. They will have all the environmental restrictions, & will cost $10,000 to manufacture. But with the govt. subsidy, they will only cost us $12000. The inner city poor & illegal aliens will get them for free.

ok.. sorry about that..

Ha hahahahahaaaaa.... I heard about that. Something about "Obama's tanking" or something like that.

My theory is once the Big Oil Subsidies (aka known as "depreciation" when referring to other industry) are gone, and gas prices and taxes continue to rise, you guys aren't going to be able to afford to fill them big tanks, so you'll all be back to our little stock tanks anyways.

Or asking the local moonshiner if he can make engine fuel... different market, same process, same enemy? Right up there with the guys making their own diesel out of leftover frying oil from KFC, Mickey D, etc.

Gee, I was being good and took my politics elsewhere as requested. So much for Admin. requests! Obama piss's me off, but until something better comes along, he's the man. WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT? Gimmie a name!

I'd vote for Ron Paul right now

f3joel wrote:

I'd vote for Ron Paul right now

That's one: Ron Paul. Anyone else?

mordicai wrote:

Gee, I was being good and took my politics elsewhere as requested. So much for Admin. requests! Obama piss's me off, but until something better comes along, he's the man. WHO DO YOU WANT TO BE PRESIDENT? Gimmie a name!

Elsewhere as in out of the IMS tank thread, not off the site. Off-topic is the place for this kinda stuff.

At this point I'd rather have seen the Lizard Queen (Hilary) win, or anyone who can make a timely decision and lead, over Obama. Had he had more experience doing... anything before being elected to be the leader of the free world he probably would make a better president. Still got two years left to find a pair and make something of his chance, even if I don't agree with most of what he and the democratic party seem to want.

Trump's gonna be fun to watch because I'm pretty sure he doesn't give much of a damn what people think of him and is going to say just about anything. Put me firmly against Ron Paul and anyone else that's a devout birther and truther.

skierd wrote:

Trump's gonna be fun to watch because I'm pretty sure he doesn't give much of a damn what people think of him and is going to say just about anything.

Once the "hey, I've seen that guy on TV" glaze wears off, Trump is toast.

He's played with being a Reform party candidate for president, was a registered Democrat not so long ago, and very recently was donating to the election campaign funds of some of the most reprehensible Democrats out there (from a conservative point of view, anyway): Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, and Charles Schumer. But the list of Democrats who have received Trump election funding is a long one indeed.

And now, with a Tea Party/conservative renewal going on, this is the guy who is going to get those people out to vote for him with his track record as a Democrat and financial supporter of Democrats like that? Don't think so. A guy that thinks good campaigning is dropping four F-bombs in a matter of minutes at a townhall meeting thinks that kind of stupidity won't lose any significant number of votes from people who find that just plain crass and offensive? Don't think so.

Right now there isn't anybody particularly appealing who has declared for the Republican nomination campaign. Not to me, anyways.

I nominate SheWolf for President!

I trust she could do a great job!

I know she was born in Hawaii-right!!!

In general, politics for me are like hemorrhoids-a pain in the ass!

Sorry, I can't support Shewolf until I see her original birth certificate and a certified copy of her psychiatrists notes attesting to her mental imbalance. I'm not voting for anyone who thinks their sane!

mordicai wrote:

That's one: Ron Paul. Anyone else?

+1 on RP. Smaller government and less invasive. Stop sending money overseas and subsidizing other country's then have to borrow money to run our own country. Not an efficient use of our tax dollars.

I was born in Frisco As for a note from a shrink, you won't get one because everyone knows I'm crazy. I'll be the first one to admit it. MUAHAHAHAHAHA! *coughs* Ok, free beer, steaks and a week long camping trip away from all this gov't horse crap where we can all just forget about stuff that makes no sense anyways.

And yeah, I figured I'd move this over here because we don't need to hex a hole in IMS' tanks with all this voo-doo gov't crap. We all know everything they have their hands in have holes in it.

skierd wrote:

Put me firmly against Ron Paul and anyone else that's a devout birther and truther.

I was not aware Ron Paul was a birther. Can you provide a link to where he's said such a thing?

Truther? What's that?

Not being accusatory or trying to incite any angst here. Just trying to understand what Ron Paul has stated or is.

Just looking for clarification beyond some words in a forum post.

RP not a birther <-- clicky


Ron Paul is not a birther.

Quote :

"Is there something to it [the so-called "birther" issue], based on what you have heard?” MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked the fiscal conservative Paul on April 19. “Is there any question that our president isn’t legitimate?”

“From my viewpoint, obviously not, because I never bring it up,” Paul replied. “So I’m going to leave it to talk show hosts and to Donald Trump, and let you guys argue it out.”

Strangely that answer wasn’t clear, or good enough, for Matthews. “No, no, but, no, be a — no, be a little more — no, this [answer] is a dodge,” Matthews said. “Is there anything to it?”

“Not that I know of,” Paul said.

Finally Matthews conceded: “You’re not a birther, sir. Thank you. We have given you the stamp of approval. You’re not a birther.”

If it's good enough for Chris Matthews it's good enough for me.

By "truther" do you mean a radical 9/11 conspiracy theorist?????

Ron Paul is NOT a truther either.


Please provide a direct link to something that suggests otherwise.

I've never heard or seen anything from Paul that suggests he's anything close to being someone who thinks 9/11 was orchestrated by our own US government.

What's wrong with birth & truth? I'm all for anyone who supports those, though we could use a few less births & a lot more truth these days..

I was trying to be jay leno with my off topic one liner, but came off like rush limbaugh. I am not a rabid political evangelist, but i have my own views. I don't mind a bit of a debate, but usually forum 'discussions' like these degenerate into nasty attacks. I bet if mordicai & i were talking over a beer we'd be in agreement more than not.

Anyway, i thought griping about the govt. was always ok.. it's the American Way. It does worry me that some liberals don't take these kinds of jabs with humor. I bet if i made a similar crack about Trump no one would have said anything.

Ok, disclaimer aside, who do i think will make a good US prez?

First, i'm going to diss obama some more. I don't think he's that smart. He has too many faux pas & political blunders. I also think his masquerade as a moderate is over. He's a full fledged tax & spend liberal, ala Jimmy Carter, the last one term prez. He wants to transform the US into a euro type socialist nanny state, which the majority of americans do not want. Some do, but they are not a majority, yet. Obama is a one term wonder. I do not think he will be re-elected. He will follow Jimmy Carter's lead.

Here's my guy:

1. smaller, limited federal govt. The federal govt should do what it does best: blowing things up & making war. They do not manage things well, or innovate. They can regulate trade & protect the nation. Leave the rest to the states.

2. Get our military out of foreign countries. we are not the police, & if we are going to be liberators, we should charge for it. Perhaps offer 'protection' like the mafia.. Certainly we can make alliances, & diplomatically lean on the countries that do not share our values. 'Speak softly & carry a big stick', like Teddy said.. Roosevelt, not Kennedy.

3. End subsidies.. farm, education, business, welfare, foreign aid, whatever. States & local govts can take care of that. The hollywood types can raise money for disasters.

4. Lower taxes to a minimum.. just enough to take care of their limited responsibilities. Let the states have programs for the poor, education, & everything else. If a state or local community wants to provide a free house to every homeless person, or free health care for everyone, they can, but they will have to do it themselves, & pay for it themselves. With all the money saved from federal taxes, more will be available for charitable groups, local programs, & aid to other countries. But it will be done voluntarily, & there would be a lot less corruption, waste, & fraud that there is when the govt. does it. Take away their money & the corruption goes away, too.

This would not be that hard. It is the way the federal govt used to be for most of our history. Big govt is fairly new in the US, starting with Wilson & FDR. All it has done is lead us to the brink of bankruptcy. I'm a 12th generation american & don't want the american experiment to be over. I like life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. I think free markets, opportunity, & reward for hard work is a better system than socialism. Most of the rest of the world does too, but it is hard to implement, & harder to preserve.

So who's the guy? I don't see one guy being able to do this. We need a new generation of public servants who have a vision for America.. who believe in the dream. I'm tired of smooth talking politicians who promote a hidden agenda. It would be nice to see if some new blood with some real patriotism could get us back on track. Jeffersonian democracy works for me. I hope my grandchildren can enjoy it, too.
scotty

I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul, although there is a lot to like in his platform and he does at least grasp the concept of government within constitutional limitation. I'd vote for him against any Democrat on the horizon, hands down. One of the major problems with Ron Paul is that he is an isolationist, and anyone who thinks the US can thrive in an increasingly global economy while ignoring everything outside the borders right up to the point we decide to blow things up is living back in the 1800's. The US has tried isolationism a few times, and it did not go well at all - the US won the Revolutionary War in no small part due to the active support and alliance of France, who weren't acting in an isolationist manner.

I agree with Scotty on Obama... the "smartest man in the room" is anything but, and except for the free ride he got from the press would not be where he is today. He is Saul Alinsky politics writ large, a skilled community organizer, but that's about it - although given the amount of time he's spent golfing and playing BB compared to any past president's time off, I guess his athletic skills have improved. He is all about the politics of hate and fear, which has served him fairly well in deflecting a lot of attention from what HE is and isn't doing. I doubt he will get a second term, given what his policies have done to the dollar and the price of gas - he can only continue to blame Bush for what his administration is doing for so long, and the midterms seem to indicate that dog won't hunt for him anymore. But of course, whether he gets a second term depends on what the Republicans put up against him.

I agree with Scotty on smaller and limited government - anyone have any idea what percentage of the population already works for the Federal government, and just how much their mean income is above the rest of the population? Taken to the logical conclusion, how does it work when EVERYBODY works for the federal government? Ditto for the inability of government to do as well as private enterprise at managing anything, particularly the economy - when was the last time you ever heard of private enterprise headhunting top executives from government, versus government headhunting executives from private enterprise? Kinda says something...

Getting out of other countries... not so much. We have to identify where there is an advantage to our being there, whether it is our security or the political levers it gives us to pull. An epic fail to me is the apparent refusal of government to pull those political levers. Why didn't we expect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to - at least a little bit - reimburse Coalition countries for the cost of providing their freedom and security during Gulf 1. Fixed oil pricing and guaranteed import levels for the next 50 years like that or something similar. Did I miss a quid pro quota somewhere?

Why don't we pull those political levers to expect South Korea to defray some of our expenses in providing them with security with that whackjob that imprisons the North, either in flat out covering expenses or favourable trade arrangements? Yes, our security is improved by making sure that crazy does not start lobbing nukes all over the place, but why does the US end up being the ones who pay the most for global security. Do all those "guns or butter" countries not also benefit, and if so why don't they pay part of the cost?

There is also an obligation of a moral imperative. If I don't feel we have any moral obligation to go to Yugoslavia to stop genocide, why should I feel any moral obligation to rush across the street and try and stop some guy who has grabbed your kid and is forcing them into a van? Maybe personal experience shaped my views, but having excavated mass graves in Bosnia, filled with kids and old people, there is a realism to evil that makes it fairly black and white. A Bosniak kid, an American kid, an Afghan kid - all the same to me. For me, the problem is not should we engage in that, but how much we can afford to engage in that. The reality is that in most instances when we - or Canada, or Britain, or Australia, etc - intervene, it is in failed states that can't begin to pay the tab for the help.

Cutting back entitlements. Yep, mostly with Scotty on that as well. Undoing all the entitlement crap since Roosevelt introduced socialism to American politics is going to take quite a while. The Commerce clause has been bent, used, and twisted into something that basically allows the federal government an enormous amount of power over just about anything states do, and it is going to take a very constitutional SCOTUS to reverse that. With Sotomayor and similar justices on the bench, that constitutional SCOTUS is a long time away - unless a very constitutional president can pull off what Roosevelt threatened and simply load up the bench with constitutional justices. Not in my lifetime.

I don't have a problem with LOANS to help out, to get an education, whatever, even when some of those loans will fail to be paid off. A lifetime of welfare, by whatever name you want to give it, is simply unsustainable. People think eliminating Medicare and Social Security is unimaginable - and yet they have been progressively going deeper in debt since the day of their inception, and we can't simply continue funding them on the basis of "well, what else can we do". Can they really not imagine the day the US simply cannot print more money to send those cheques, where even taxing "the rich" 100% won't begin to pay for them? What we can do is tax people a lot less and reward them for planning and expecting to anticipate and plan for providing for themselves. Governments do this in other areas, so this shouldn't be any different.

There is a difference between imagining what it would be nice for government to do for us, and what government can afford to do for us over the long term. Truman and Washington were two presidents who nailed it on the head when they pointed out the danger overreaching and overpowerful governments pose to individual liberty.

The US was founded and existed most of its existence on the idea of the supremacy of individual freedoms and liberties rather than the good of the state and the ease of governing. On the course we've been on the last hundred years, that individual freedom and liberty is on its way to extinction in exchange for group welfare and group rights - and precious little of that.

Quote :

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
Thomas Jefferson

Good ol' Tom.....

Entitlements are tough Jager. Where do you start and who gets axed. I'm a two war combat vet. 100% service connected. You going to take away my pension and VA medical care? How about the lady down the street with two young kids. Daddy ran off and left them and she got laid off from her manufacturing job because of the economy. You going to let those kids starve...I don't think so. It's easy to mind fuck about this stuff but when push comes to shove we are a state that takes care of those who can't help themselves. THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I.

mordicai wrote:

Entitlements are tough Jager. Where do you start and who gets axed. I'm a two war combat vet. 100% service connected. You going to take away my pension and VA medical care? How about the lady down the street with two young kids. Daddy ran off and left them and she got laid off from her manufacturing job because of the economy. You going to let those kids starve...I don't think so. It's easy to mind fuck about this stuff but when push comes to shove we are a state that takes care of those who can't help themselves. THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I.

And considering how much we'll spend on other countries why shouldn't we take care of our own?

How many hundreds of billions have we "given" to Pakistan?

mordicai wrote:

Entitlements are tough Jager. Where do you start and who gets axed. I'm a two war combat vet. 100% service connected. You going to take away my pension and VA medical care?

A pension and medical plan earned by service - in any job - is not an entitlement. There's a difference between what people earn by their labour, service, whatever, and government handouts just because you exist and people think you're entitled to a handout.

Quote :

How about the lady down the street with two young kids. Daddy ran off and left them and she got laid off from her manufacturing job because of the economy. You going to let those kids starve...I don't think so.

Getting rid of entitlements doesn't mean people starving to death in the streets in front of your house. Welfare for life and all these other entitlements are fairly new - where were all the people starving to death before that came into force? We looked after people long before entitlements, but we also didn't assure people their was cradle to grave support, even if they didn't even pretend to get off their lazy asses and work. My great grandmother raised three kids at the turn of the last century, on a crummy little homestead in the middle of nowhere, a social pariah because after her husband died, the last kid - my grandmother - was borne out of wedlock to a man who never married her.

She proved up on her homestead, raised three kids who all got an education and went on to be responsible, contributing members of the communities they settled in. From what my grandmother told me, she felt she generally had a pretty good life, was proud of the kids she raised, her little farm, and the fact she never owed anybody a nickle. People like that weren't exactly unique back then, lots of people faced that kind of hardship in life, totally isolated where no government could have given them entitlements even if they'd existed at the time.

And now, four and five generations later, our DNA has been somehow altered to the point we simply cannot make sufficient effort to make our own way in life. And yet, some mentally handicapped person can manage to hold down an entry level job, save money, pay most of their way, and be pretty much self sufficient or get by in an assisted living situation.

It is pretty pathetic when a mentally and physically fit person supposedly can't support themselves while a handicapped person can - and be proud of themselves and the fact they can do just that. A little personal pride and effort goes a long way it seems.

Here's another question: what is your plan for when the day comes when, even if we promise cradle to grave, there is simply no money left to deliver on the promises? You'll have several generations containing a percentage of people who feel they are entitled to their government cheque and every other form of handout, every month, and don't even think about being late with that welfare money of mine. What are you gonna do for those people when you go to them and explain you simply physically can't give them their money, because their is no money? What's the plan for that?

When you grew up, were teenagers popping kids out right and left? When did that suddenly become okay? For some people in society, it is becoming a lifestyle, and an accepted one - and their numbers aren't diminishing.

Here's another question: when kids grow up in an environment where the parent(s) do nothing to improve their lot - except moan about it - and happily exist on the dole year in and year out, what kind of lessons do we expect the kids to take from that? If we accept that kids model their parents' behaviour, why would we be surprised when many of the kids adopt a lifestyle just like their parents.

And one last question: when Vietnamese, Chinese, etc refugees can land in this country, without even a pot to piss in, without speaking the language, work their asses off, and be well on their way to middle class within a decade - are they genetically superior to Americans borne here who apparently can only get by with a lifetime of handouts, and apparently can't achieve the same success? Why can the refugee achieve success and the American Dream in America, but somebody born here just can't get anywhere?

Government doesn't do anybody any favours by enabling their continued failure and dependence on the government to look after them. It simply makes government and those who support that view enablers of poverty becoming a reality of one generation after another, people who will not try to be any better.

I think there are several factors to consider when looking at us troops having a base or other military presence in other countries.

1. War has changed. We can make military strikes from anywhere in the world. Carriers, subs, drones, etc, all give us mobile capabilities. We should also be able to use facilities of close allies. We do not need a major police presence to make our points. The levers we can still pull. That is the 'speaking softly' part. Our military is the 'big stick'. How did we get Bin Laden? We don't have a big military presence in Pakistan, but it happened covertly. That is the nature of war, now. That's where our defense money should be spent. We are wasting billions of dollars sustaining bases & in foreign aid that we cannot afford to spend. Covert operations are more effective, anyway.

2. Occupation breeds resentment. The German people do not care for our bases in Germany. The likelyhood of Nazis retaking the german govt is remote, as is an attack from russia. We can stay in nato, but we don't need all the bases in europe & mideast.

3. Isolationism & meddlesome are both extremes.. we are more meddlesome now. We can keep full diplomatic contact with all the world, without having a military presence in their countries.

4. Who picks the winners & losers? Why should iraq get liberated, but not somalia? or North Korea? or libya? We can support covertly any freedom fighters in oppressed countries, but we don't need to invade them & risk our servicemen to do it.

5. Limited military presence means less accusations of the US military being used for political or economic reasons. Was iraq just to liberate? Lots of people are convinced it was done for oil, too.. which would be nice at the moment.. Our history in Latin America reinforces this suspicion. Let businesses fend for themselves if they want to invest in risky foreign ventures. They should not rely on the 'big stick' to bail them out.

6. Is our military for hire? Are we supporting Pakistan, Egypt, s. Korea, etc, because they are 'for us'? We shouldn't have to buy our friends & allies, or support shady govts because we think they are better than the alternative. This is a leftover practice from the cold war era. The current 'war' is not fought this way. It is economic & diplomatic. The days of dazzling some 3rd world leaders with bags of dollars is over. The dollars aren't worth that much, anyway. But if we are going to hire out our military, we should at least cover our own costs, rather than expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

7. Remember the cold war against the evil communist empire? Mutual assured destruction was the way we kept the peace. The USSR fell because the people tired of waiting in lines for everything, & longed for the freedoms they saw in western movies, music, & other black market items. It was freedom & prosperity that brought down Russia, not our missiles. Granted, at the time, our missiles kept the peace during tense times, but that threat is no longer active. Big bases with lots of missiles are not a deterrent to our current enemies. They are afraid of our Navy Seals.

8. We cannot afford to police the world. We're broke. We can't even secure our own border, how can we provide security to other countries? Let the Europeans take care of their own borders & threats. We can give them moral support.. provide intelligence, train, & even join them in some military actions if our guys want to.

I'm with Jager on the entitlements.. very good points & well reasoned. Ending Federal Govt. entitlements does not mean an end to charity. That begins at home. Local govts can do what they want, with more money available since the fed isn't taking so much from their tax base.

I'm also in favor of taking away tax free status from 'non-profit' & religious institutions. Too often they are a dodge, & if they are making money, why shouldn't they pay their fair share? If we have a smaller federal tax, it would not be a burden to anyone. If you are pulling in millions from a televangelist organization, relief agency, radio or tv stations, why not pay their fair share for federal protection? The general populace will have more disposable income to make up any losses they might have from paying a token tax.

We should ask, 'Is this something the federal govt has to do, or would it be better left to local govt or the private sector?' Border security should be a federal issue. We can't expect north dakota to provide the security necessary to protect us from the invading hordes from the north. All the states & all the citizens should do that. But if Wisconsin wants to make union deals it can't afford, the rest of the country should not be asked to foot the bill for it.

I hope we can return to historical American democracy, where the constitution is followed & freedom is revered.
scotty

Scotty,

I vote for the USofA closing every single foreign military base on the planet and bringing everybody home to our own country.

We can set up bases in our own towns and cities and bolster our own economies while defending our own shores from within.


As far as I know there are no foreign military bases in the USofA, so I see no reason to keep US bases open in foreign lands.

Bring them all home and station them within our own borders.

I'm way cool with that on every level.

seems like the US could squeak by with a DoD budget of 150% the total defense budget of all the European Countries plus Japan and So K.

In the quest for a smaller Federal Gov't, do we get rid of the CIA?, NSA?, NIH? FCC? USPS? Sell the National Parks? Sell the National Forests? Sell the Bureau of Land Management? Sell the Grand Canyon? Sell Yellostone? Yosemite?. Maybe we could squeak along with 1 senator per state? and maybe a max of 6 for the House? We could close the Interstate Hiway System or make it a huge toll road system?

What do we need NASA for? Treasury Dept, scrap that too? Homeland Security could get by with way less, make the airlines do their own security. And airports, sell them all, especially those that only serve private planes. Then we won't need the FAA, or the ICC... certainly not the Dept of Agriculture or Interior? Let the states run 50 different FBI's, that will improve security.

Whatever happens, please don't send anymore work to New Mexico... LOL, they cannot handle the jobs they have already and we don't have any debt... I'm sure the other states are ready and willing to take on all this work though.

The only thing I don't understand... What is your model? Which country or region on Earth are you trying to be like? It sounds like you want to be like Africa or Russia. I can hardly wait. That's what Churchill said, the US gov't is terrible but... all the others are worse... or something like that.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Oh, I didn't go riding today, too cold and had to go to the Doc; good thing we have Medicare!

I shouldn't be writing with this much scotch downrange after the election results, but...

I'm generally in agreement with Scotty, but for a few comments.

rydnseek wrote:

I think there are several factors to consider when looking at us troops having a base or other military presence in other countries.

1. War has changed. We can make military strikes from anywhere in the world. Carriers, subs, drones, etc, all give us mobile capabilities. We should also be able to use facilities of close allies. We do not need a major police presence to make our points. The levers we can still pull. That is the 'speaking softly' part. Our military is the 'big stick'. How did we get Bin Laden? We don't have a big military presence in Pakistan, but it happened covertly. That is the nature of war, now. That's where our defense money should be spent. We are wasting billions of dollars sustaining bases & in foreign aid that we cannot afford to spend. Covert operations are more effective, anyway.

Not exactly.

Covert ops/special forces are a force multiplier. So their results can be dramatic but they are not a match or replacement for force itself - and when you wear the uniform, you kind of hope your government will send you out onto the two way rifle range in overwhelming force, not "it'll be tight but you can do it" numbers and equipment. If covert operations were more effective, we'd have sent nothing but special forces into Afghanistan and Iraq. It just doesn't work that way.

Carriers, subs, and drones do not give you feet on the ground. And all the more so as we increasingly move into a time of asymetrical warfare and three block war. There is no FEBA anymore, in many places. No, we don't have a big military presence in Pakistan, and bin Ladin was a success - but obviously, with all our carriers, subs, and drones, covert activities have not even begun to shut down the supply lines, logistical support, and flow of fighters coming from Pakistan.

The other thing that needs to be addressed before shutting bases is if we're really sure we're never going to need that particular one ever again. Watching Canada running around from country to country, hat in hand, looking for places to use as bases to move troops around, staging areas, etc is a glimpse of how that goes. If we're that sure a base is of no further use to us, then cool. But assuming they have become permanently redundent has its own unique risks.

There is no disagreement that we are wasting money on some bases and foreign aid, perhaps on a lot of it, and absolutely no disagreement that we cannot afford to spend that money

Quote :

Occupation breeds resentment. The German people do not care for our bases in Germany.

It's worth noting that being there by invitation on leased bases is not the same as occupation. Do some Germans resent Americans being in Germany? Hell yeah, but the German government hasn't fallen anytime lately because the people demanded the US be given the boot and the government refused. Any more than Canadian governments fell back in the 80's because a loudly local minority protested US submarines using the Esquimalt torpedo range and were nuclear subs.

Should those bases be closed? Sure, if we're certain we'll never have a need for them again.

Quote :

Who picks the winners & losers? Why should iraq get liberated, but not somalia? or North Korea? or libya?

A good start to that is it boils down to committee decisions at the UN and NATO level. Along with the reality that we can't be everywhere, so we pick our spots. In the case of Iraq, it came down to President Clinton signing a bill calling for forcing regime change, followed by a disarmament ruling at the UN level which Iraq chose to ignore and skirt.

Quote :

We can support covertly any freedom fighters in oppressed countries, but we don't need to invade them & risk our servicemen to do it.

What kind of effective support do you propose without boots on the ground? You can call anyone a "freedom fighter", but without proper training they are simply an undisciplined and ineffective rabble. Parachuting in rifles and explosives isn't going to do it.

Quote :

Limited military presence means less accusations of the US military being used for political or economic reasons. Was iraq just to liberate? Lots of people are convinced it was done for oil, too..

It isn't going to matter what the US does. A certain percentage are always going to carry on with their conspiracy theories. But all military action is an extension of politics in the first place. Military action begins where diplomacy ends. And many kinds of military activities can be related to economic reasons - and those reasons can be perfectly legitimate. What is missing is context.

Quote :

We shouldn't have to buy our friends & allies, or support shady govts because we think they are better than the alternative.

Like it or not, sometimes they very much are better than the alternative - on many fronts. How many people these days vote in an election for politicians they don't really like, but support them because they think that one is better than the alternative? Same thing.

Quote :

But if we are going to hire out our military, we should at least cover our own costs, rather than expect the taxpayers to foot the bill.

If by this you mean other countries should be footing the bill for our involvement when they are the biggest to benefit from our being there, I happen to strongly agree.

Quote :

The USSR fell because the people tired of waiting in lines for everything, & longed for the freedoms they saw in western movies, music, & other black market items. It was freedom & prosperity that brought down Russia, not our missiles.

I'll have to disagree with that. It involved the Saudis messing with oil pricing, Russia having to mortgage the house for oil to keep the economic engine running - and a guy named Reagan upping the anti on defense spending and causing the Russians to spend themselves into bankrupcy. A logistics victory of sorts. Up until then, Soviets only dared to dream.

Quote :

Big bases with lots of missiles are not a deterrent to our current enemies. They are afraid of our Navy Seals.

I don't think China - or North Korea - are too terribly afraid of our Seal Teams, Delta Force, etc. Of course, if we can never see ourselves as knocking heads with these people ever again in the future. Then this is not an issue.

Quote :

We cannot afford to police the world. We're broke. We can't even secure our own border, how can we provide security to other countries? Let the Europeans take care of their own borders & threats. We can give them moral support.. provide intelligence, train, & even join them in some military actions if our guys want to.

Yep, we're broke, and we can't continue going on as everyone's best friend. Moral support, however, if their interests align with ours, is not a substitute for competency in military action. Countries like China take the long view on many things

Quote :

I'm also in favor of taking away tax free status from 'non-profit' & religious institutions. Too often they are a dodge, & if they are making money, why shouldn't they pay their fair share?

Agree with you on that part as well. When a church or non profit chooses to become politically active, that should be the end of any tax breaks.

Quote :

I hope we can return to historical American democracy, where the constitution is followed & freedom is revered.
scotty

Pretty hard to argue with that.