[Hoot Gibson]

Man, I have a hard time buying that you're a Libertarian. Half of that makes no sense.

We're in Iraq because we can't just leave them hanging, we're advising and helping get their **** back together. We're in Afghanistan because there's still enemy to kill, and we're also helping get their country straightened out and train their military so they don't go back to being Taliban-controlled as soon as we roll out of there. And I'm not even going to address Libya. It's ridiculous to consider 20 or so CIA officers any sort of occupation. We don't even have military there! You'd have a better argument asking why we're in Tajikistan.

I'd like to hear your reason as to why "we're" in over 90 countries. You act like we're in every village around the world, when most of those 90 are countries we're helping, on their tab.

tvtimeout's view of our military is pretty much the position of the Libertarian Party as I understand it. Many of them would seem to prefer that "we" fight only in self defense when the enemy invades American soil. Even then, the Libertarian Party believes that we are arming our military with too many expensive advanced weapons. In that regard, the Libertarian Party shares the view of the military held by most liberals in the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, there are fiscal libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party who believe in our federal government's constitutional role to provide national security through a strong military.

[vundy33]

tvtimeout's view of our military is pretty much the position of the Libertarian Party as I understand it. Many of them would seem to prefer that "we" fight only in self defense when the enemy invades American soil. Even then, the Libertarian Party believes that we are arming our military with too many expensive advanced weapons. In that regard, the Libertarian Party shares the view of the military held by most liberals in the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, there are fiscal libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party who believe in our federal government's constitutional role to provide national security through a strong military.

Oh, ok, gotcha. My comment was not only his last posts, but many others, compared to what I've seen you say.

And I agree with their stance on that to a certain extent. But, I like that we have the capability to be anywhere on earth with a substantial force in the matter of hours. When I say that, some people think I love war and want our military to be at war in every country possible, but it's the opposite. Alot of times, our capabilities to fight anywhere on earth keeps a small conflict from escalating.

[tvtimeout]

Who won this round the GOP or Obama? If I'm not mistaken the GOP was asking for a $61B cut and no funding for planned parenthood or the EPA while Obama was offering a $4B cut in spending?

When the dust settled we ended up with a $38.5B spending cut, while planned parenthood and the EPA are still funded. I hope there is more to the story than just this, because according to one report over the last eight days our debt grew by $54B and over the next six months were going to cut spending by $38.5B.

A voice of reason comes out of the mist!!!1:Clap::Clap:

However, people would have thought the Republicans have done something so great. :yawn:

Can anybody else speak Chinese?

Actually, what would be kinda cynical is we default on the loans, China would own worthless paper. The entire world economy would collapse and then the someone would recommend the one world order thing. Then here we go...

[tvtimeout]

Oh, ok, gotcha. My comment was not only his last posts, but many others, compared to what I've seen you say.

And I agree with their stance on that to a certain extent. But, I like that we have the capability to be anywhere on earth with a substantial force in the matter of hours. When I say that, some people think I love war and want our military to be at war in every country possible, but it's the opposite. Alot of times, our capabilities to fight anywhere on earth keeps a small conflict from escalating.

Are you saying we can not fly anywhere in the world within 24 hrs from the U.S.?

[tvtimeout]

tvtimeout's view of our military is pretty much the position of the Libertarian Party as I understand it. Many of them would seem to prefer that "we" fight only in self defense when the enemy invades American soil. Even then, the Libertarian Party believes that we are arming our military with too many expensive advanced weapons. In that regard, the Libertarian Party shares the view of the military held by most liberals in the Democratic Party.

Fortunately, there are fiscal libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party who believe in our federal government's constitutional role to provide national security through a strong military.

Basically got it. Again, I will point to the 273 Billion cost of the military and that is not included in the two conflicts that we are engaged in right now. Militarization is much of threat to our freedom as socialism is... if you don't believe me look at Germany 1937-1945.

[tvtimeout]

Man, I have a hard time buying that you're a Libertarian. Half of that makes no sense.
We're in Iraq because we can't just leave them hanging, we're advising and helping get their **** back together. We're in Afghanistan because there's still enemy to kill, and we're also helping get their country straightened out and train their military so they don't go back to being Taliban-controlled as soon as we roll out of there. And I'm not even going to address Libya. It's ridiculous to consider 20 or so CIA officers any sort of occupation. We don't even have military there! You'd have a better argument asking why we're in Tajikistan.

I'd like to hear your reason as to why "we're" in over 90 countries. You act like we're in every village around the world, when most of those 90 are countries we're helping, on their tab.

You know that I agree it makes no sense, when people look exactly what the US has done on paper. Contend any point you like and show me that I am wrong.

The reason we are in 90 countries is because of military wel-fare. Some folks thinks it is the responsiblity of the US to intervein around the world because we have the strength to do so.

You really believe that the other countries pay us for our military to be in their country? Ronald Reagan would disagree with you... look at this commission report and more important the date...

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4665&type=0

Came from our government archieves...

But I guess I am putting Reagan in the same group as Eisenhower (right hoot)

I would say look at the example that George Washington set when the French, who just helped us in the Revolutionary War called on our help... we could not afford to do so, I make the arguement that we can not afford to do it now.

As another point of history tidbit... did you know that most Americans and politicians did not want to fight in WWII, it was only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we engaged, and we only attacked Germany, Italy, because they declared war on us. Somehow, we managed...

Where is that US?

[Bob Seger]

You know that I agree it makes no sense, when people look exactly what the US has done on paper. Contend any point you like and show me that I am wrong.

The reason we are in 90 countries is because of military wel-fare. Some folks thinks it is the responsiblity of the US to intervein around the world because we have the strength to do so.

You really believe that the other countries pay us for our military to be in their country? Ronald Reagan would disagree with you... look at this commission report and more important the date...

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4665&type=0

Came from our government archieves...

But I guess I am putting Reagan in the same group as Eisenhower (right hoot)

I would say look at the example that George Washington set when the French, who just helped us in the Revolutionary War called on our help... we could not afford to do so, I make the arguement that we can not afford to do it now.

As another point of history tidbit... did you know that most Americans and politicians did not want to fight in WWII, it was only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we engaged, and we only attacked Germany, Italy, because they declared war on us. Somehow, we managed...

Where is that US?

For you to be a teacher, you certainly don't appear to spend very much time in the classroom......

[tvtimeout]

For you to be a teacher, you certainly don't appear to spend very much time in the classroom......

lol, I understand that thought, but if you look at the times, I get on here mostly at night, and around 10:30 AM EST, during the week. Last week, I also had spring break!

[Hoot Gibson]

Are you saying we can not fly anywhere in the world within 24 hrs from the U.S.?

No that is not what he is saying. You might want to research how long it takes to mobilize our military for a war. If our troops were as lightly armed as the Libertarian Party apparently thinks that they should be, then they could simply fly commercial and check their small arms with their baggage.

[Hoot Gibson]

Basically got it. Again, I will point to the 273 Billion cost of the military and that is not included in the two conflicts that we are engaged in right now. Militarization is much of threat to our freedom as socialism is... if you don't believe me look at Germany 1937-1945.

The Nazis were/are socialists. Armed or not, socialists are a great threat to freedom - we agree on that much.

[Hoot Gibson]

You know that I agree it makes no sense, when people look exactly what the US has done on paper. Contend any point you like and show me that I am wrong.

The reason we are in 90 countries is because of military wel-fare. Some folks thinks it is the responsiblity of the US to intervein around the world because we have the strength to do so.

You really believe that the other countries pay us for our military to be in their country? Ronald Reagan would disagree with you... look at this commission report and more important the date...

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4665&type=0

Came from our government archieves...

But I guess I am putting Reagan in the same group as Eisenhower (right hoot)

I would say look at the example that George Washington set when the French, who just helped us in the Revolutionary War called on our help... we could not afford to do so, I make the arguement that we can not afford to do it now.

As another point of history tidbit... did you know that most Americans and politicians did not want to fight in WWII, it was only after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we engaged, and we only attacked Germany, Italy, because they declared war on us. Somehow, we managed...

Where is that US?

On the bolded, how many American men and women died because we were so poorly prepared for war? How many more died while we played catch-up with the Axis powers? And you think WWII is a good example of how the federal government should defend the US population? Our country was caught completely flat footed. Had the Germans and Japanese waited until they had developed nuclear weapons (Germany was home to the greatest physicists of their time), millions might have died and we might all be speaking German today. Fortunately, Hitler was not a patient man.

[Bob Seger]

On the bolded, how many American men and women died because we were so poorly prepared for war? How many more died while we played catch-up with the Axis powers? And you think WWII is a good example of how the federal government should defend the US population? Our country was caught completely flat footed. Had the Germans and Japanese waited until they had developed nuclear weapons (Germany was home to the greatest physicists of their time), millions might have died and we might all be speaking German today. Fortunately, Hitler was not a patient man.

Which included Einstein. He chose not return to Germany (he was visiting the United States) during the time that Hitler rose to power.

[Hoot Gibson]

Which included Einstein. He chose not return to Germany (he was visiting the United States) during the time that Hitler rose to power.

It is ironic that Hitler persecuted Jewish scientists who fled Germany and helped us win the war.

[tvtimeout]

On the bolded, how many American men and women died because we were so poorly prepared for war? How many more died while we played catch-up with the Axis powers? And you think WWII is a good example of how the federal government should defend the US population? Our country was caught completely flat footed. Had the Germans and Japanese waited until they had developed nuclear weapons (Germany was home to the greatest physicists of their time), millions might have died and we might all be speaking German today. Fortunately, Hitler was not a patient man.

Nah 9/11 is better way to defend Americans...

Hoot I have questions for ya

1. Do you think we spent more money in the military in 2001 than in 1945?

2. Was our country caught flat footed in 2001?

3. How many people died on Dec. 7 1941 compared to Sept. 11, 2001? ( I think you will find out there is more on the later)

4. What is the longest war in American History?

5. Do you not think one attack is equal to another attack?

Just because you spend money on something does that mean you are more safe... sorry to inform you of that.

The defense budget of 1945 looks like peanuts compared to the military budget of 2001. Yet more Americans were killed in that attack of 2001 than in 1945. America was caught flat footed in both. I can play the if than game too

As far as the catch up statement, who knows... do you? If the Clinton kept Bin Laden, would we have to have a brand new government department to spend more money on...

I an play the if/than game as well... If Iraq had the bio weapons that they suppossedly had than the soldier death count would be higher. If my aunt had testicles than I guess should would be my uncle... If, than's never work out, and kinda of pointless to point out.

Facts on attacks on American Soil though, those can be proved. Facts about war can be proved. I think if you compare the attack on Pearl Harbor compared to 9/11 you will see alot of similarities, except the money that was spend on the latter.

I would grant you the war itself WWII is blooder so far, but it only took 4 yrs (american involvement) where the Afganhastan conflict has taken 10yrs, (you can not include Iraq in that because it did not happen until 4-04) but it is still longer than WWII.

Cost would be interesting to see as well, I have no clue this evening, but could find out for you... to run both campaigns so far.

[Bolt]

Heres a thought....
How about we end all welfare to people who are able to flip bugers.
that alone should take the deficit down.
Do away with food stamps and were in business....

[Hoot Gibson]

Nah 9/11 is better way to defend Americans...

Hoot I have questions for ya

1. Do you think we spent more money in the military in 2001 than in 1945?

In terms of percentage of GDP, we spent far more in 1945. If you believe otherwise, then I hope that your field of expertise is not American history.

2. Was our country caught flat footed in 2001?

Yes it was but not nearly to the extent that it was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor nearly destroyed our entire Pacific fleet while our forces were literally asleep in bed. The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center had no impact on our military capability. Furthermore, in 1941, even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, our military was not substantially better equipped than the Japanese and Germans.

3. How many people died on Dec. 7 1941 compared to Sept. 11, 2001? ( I think you will find out there is more on the later}

Approximately 2,400 versus nearly 3,000. If you believe that the lower death toll of Pearl Harbor indicates that our military was better prepared to defend this country in 1941 than 2001, then I say again that I hope your major was not American History and that you are not spreading such myths to your students.

4. What is the longest war in American History?

The war in Afghanistan. More than 1,600 Americans have died there in the ten year war.

5. Do you not think one attack is equal to another attack?

Certainly not. Terrorist attacks are always possible by an enemy that is relatively poorly equipped. The survival of our country was never threatened by the 9/11 attacks. There was never a possibility of a large scale invasion of the United States because of the damage that was inflicted on our nation's ability to defend itself. Al Qaeda was never a threat militarily.

When World War II broke out, our military was not the best equipped and trained in the world and hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result. Our military weakness and poor preparation allowed the Japanese to cripple our Pacific fleet in a single attack. Military parity with our potential enemies is not something that this nation should be setting as a goal. But, those who ignore history are really doomed to repeat it. The Libertarian Party would apparently like to lead us to that doom.

Just because you spend money on something does that mean you are more safe... sorry to inform you of that.

Sorry to misinform is more like it.

The defense budget of 1945 looks like peanuts compared to the military budget of 2001. Yet more Americans were killed in that attack of 2001 than in 1945. America was caught flat footed in both. I can play the if than game too

It is sad to see so many factual errors in a single post. The defense budget of 1945, in real terms, dwarfed the spending on defense in 2001. Look it up. Never mind, I will look it up for you.

U.S. MILITARY SPENDING, FISCAL YEARS 1945-2008

Maybe you would prefer to compare spending in terms of GDP. Either way, your assertion is factually wrong.

US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940--2003

As far as the catch up statement, who knows... do you? If the Clinton kept Bin Laden, would we have to have a brand new government department to spend more money on...

I an play the if/than game as well... If Iraq had the bio weapons that they suppossedly had than the soldier death count would be higher. If my aunt had testicles than I guess should would be my uncle... If, than's never work out, and kinda of pointless to point out.

Facts on attacks on American Soil though, those can be proved. Facts about war can be proved. I think if you compare the attack on Pearl Harbor compared to 9/11 you will see alot of similarities, except the money that was spend on the latter.

I would grant you the war itself WWII is blooder so far, but it only took 4 yrs (american involvement) where the Afganhastan conflict has taken 10yrs, (you can not include Iraq in that because it did not happen until 4-04) but it is still longer than WWII.

Cost would be interesting to see as well, I have no clue this evening, but could find out for you... to run both campaigns so far.

I agree. You have no clue. In a debate, it is best not to ask questions when you do not know the answers.

FYI, 405,399 Americans died in World War II. To date, the combined death toll in the Afghan and Iraq Wars has been under 6,000. I think that most people would agree that a 10-year war with far fewer American casualties is preferable to a shorter war with far more American casualties.

Today's American military is far and away the best trained and best equipped military force in the history of the world. That is a fact and it is the main reason that American casualties in the War on Terror have been low, when compared to other major wars in which our country has engaged.

The Libertarian Party would like to level the playing field when it comes to national defense. It believes that our military is trained and equipped too well and that we should return to the days when defending this country meant literally fighting on our own beaches.

Playing at home is usually an advantage in sports but fighting a real war at home on American soil is a desperate and bloody last resort for sane human beings. That is the kind of war to which Americans will be looking forward if the Libertarian Party and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party ever get their way.

[TheRealThing]

In response to Hoot. Possibly the main reason our casualties were as high as they were in Afghanistan is because of our rediculous rules of engagement. We have to wait until we are fired upon before we can shoot. Thousands of young American soldiers walking on eggshells over there in harm's way, have to hear a bullett whiz by their head before they can even engage.

Over here extreme lefties would happily prosecute 4 highly decorated men of honor (marines) for allegedly blacking the eye of some raghead enemy combatant. While honoring, feeling sorry for and financing the legal fees for the taitor that supplied all those classified military documents to Julian Assange. We can lay that squarely at the feet of the liberals as well. Wartime Apologetics; consider the way the left has gone into hysterics over waterboarding. The enemy kidnaps innocents and military and hack their heads off on the intenet. We have to treat them like long lost kin over here though. They say all's fair in love and war, not in the mind of the lost in space leftwingers, no, we can't intimidate or even interrogate rudely. If the left had their way everyone of these lunatics would be walking our streets and collecting every imaginable entitilement while awaiting the closing on their small business loans.

One thing is for sure without a doubt. All this tying our boys hands behind their back on foreign battle fields and setting traps to prosecute them for nothing is the work of the clueless. The sublimely naive, ultra liberal who can't recognize evil when they see it. All the hard lessons of WWII have all but died with those who fought in Europe and the Pacific. The rhetoric of these 20 somethings that think they have the answers shows with clarity their complete lack of understanding of the true nature of the world in which we live. The ONLY thing between us and swift and sure destruction are our armed services.

[Hoot Gibson]

TheRealThing, you make some excellent points. I would like to add that I believe that this country should reexamine the "you broke it, you fix it" policy toward war. If a country's government commits an act of war against the US or actively supports terrorism against us (which is an act of war, IMO), I don't believe that we have any moral responsibility to rebuild their country.

If we are attacked or threatened with attack, then let the despots who attacked us deal with the aftermath of war. Only if it is in our national interests, meaning the benefits to American taxpayers outweigh the costs, should we spend money on reconstruction of a vanquished aggressor's nation. We rebuilt Japan and Europe following WW II, in part, because we needed markets for manufactured goods.

[tvtimeout]

In terms of percentage of GDP, we spent far more in 1945. If you believe otherwise, then I hope that your field of expertise is not American history.

Yes it was but not nearly to the extent that it was when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor nearly destroyed our entire Pacific fleet while our forces were literally asleep in bed. The attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center had no impact on our military capability. Furthermore, in 1941, even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, our military was not substantially better equipped than the Japanese and Germans.

Approximately 2,400 versus nearly 3,000. If you believe that the lower death toll of Pearl Harbor indicates that our military was better prepared to defend this country in 1941 than 2001, then I say again that I hope your major was not American History and that you are not spreading such myths to your students.

The war in Afghanistan. More than 1,600 Americans have died there in the ten year war.

Certainly not. Terrorist attacks are always possible by an enemy that is relatively poorly equipped. The survival of our country was never threatened by the 9/11 attacks. There was never a possibility of a large scale invasion of the United States because of the damage that was inflicted on our nation's ability to defend itself. Al Qaeda was never a threat militarily.

When World War II broke out, our military was not the best equipped and trained in the world and hundreds of thousands of Americans died as a result. Our military weakness and poor preparation allowed the Japanese to cripple our Pacific fleet in a single attack. Military parity with our potential enemies is not something that this nation should be setting as a goal. But, those who ignore history are really doomed to repeat it. The Libertarian Party would apparently like to lead us to that doom.

Sorry to misinform is more like it.

It is sad to see so many factual errors in a single post. The defense budget of 1945, in real terms, dwarfed the spending on defense in 2001. Look it up. Never mind, I will look it up for you.

U.S. MILITARY SPENDING, FISCAL YEARS 1945-2008

Maybe you would prefer to compare spending in terms of GDP. Either way, your assertion is factually wrong.

US military spending as a percentage of GDP, 1940--2003

I agree. You have no clue. In a debate, it is best not to ask questions when you do not know the answers.

FYI, 405,399 Americans died in World War II. To date, the combined death toll in the Afghan and Iraq Wars has been under 6,000. I think that most people would agree that a 10-year war with far fewer American casualties is preferable to a shorter war with far more American casualties.

Today's American military is far and away the best trained and best equipped military force in the history of the world. That is a fact and it is the main reason that American casualties in the War on Terror have been low, when compared to other major wars in which our country has engaged.

The Libertarian Party would like to level the playing field when it comes to national defense. It believes that our military is trained and equipped too well and that we should return to the days when defending this country meant literally fighting on our own beaches.

Playing at home is usually an advantage in sports but fighting a real war at home on American soil is a desperate and bloody last resort for sane human beings. That is the kind of war to which Americans will be looking forward if the Libertarian Party and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party ever get their way.

Just a quick point compared 1941, Dec. 7 to Sept. 11, 2001. I never said the entire war is not more costly... I was comparing the two dates, not the two wars.

More americans died Sept. 11, 2001 than in Dec. 7, 1941. More money was being spent in 2001 3.8% of the GDP budget, before the attack of Dec. 7 at 1.7% of the GDP.

So I spent more money in 2001 according to our GDP and more Americans died than that of Dec. 7, 1941.

Now look at what we have spent in the two wars in Afghanstan and Iraq

According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011.

Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.h...z1JYLUm0DG

Now look at cost of this year. Minus the one billion for the budget agreement.

Service 2010 Budget request[9] Percentage of Total Notes
Army $243.9 billion 31.8%
Navy $149.9 billion 23.4% Department of Navy budget excluding Marine Corps
Marine Corps $29.0 billion 4% Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
Air Force $170.6 billion 22%
Intelligence $50 billion 7% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure
Defense Wide $118.7 billion 15.5%

I really liked what we spend on intelligence, well sort of, we can not even tell you what we spend.

Now if you believe that government is wasteful and run into shortages and need more money to complete projects. Do you really think we only spend 712.1 Billion dollars, (this year alone)? I am sure this budget did not count the Libya missle strikes (just one example).

Now you say we have the best trained and well equipped, that is why causalities are low. I agree with you to some extent, I also think though the enemy is not that strong. It is not like Vietnam dealing with terrian issues, a well financed enemy, so let us not total kid ourselves either.

But the whole point to this entire thing, I think military cutting should happen. I do believe in protecting our borders. Notice I said our borders, not Libya, Germany, Great Britian, Japan, Iraq, and Afganhstan, plus the other 80 plus countries we currently occupy.

You want to build a weapons system to protect our borders... fine, no problem, but bring our men and women home.

For the record the Libertarian Party's platform

Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

[vundy33]

Are you saying we can not fly anywhere in the world within 24 hrs from the U.S.?

lol, sure we can. But a battalion and a small amount of tracked vehicles aren't going to do much.