[tvtimeout]

Maybe if you could stick to one point long enough to defend it, you'd be able to score a few points around here. You said this---- "I disagree!!! I think it is because we have nuclear warheads with intercontinet missles (whatever those are) ...with a great airforce..."



I pointed out that having the world's foremost nuclear arsenal sitting around at our disposal didn't in any way deter the terrorist assault on our nation on 9/11. Therefore, your observation with regard to our nuclear deterrent only means something to other nuclear Countries like Russia and Red China, and then, only in time of nuclear war. Any other scenario one might reasonably concieve with regard to armed conflict would entail the use of conventional means. All the other countries of military where-with-all, in the world are very aware of our military presence around the world thus, the US deterrent is formidable. Not many would try us as a result. So again, yes, those bases are necessary. Only the Islamic extremists in the arab world believe they will go to heaven if they murder 1 to infinity infidels and, are therefore ready to die to that end. No deterrent would mean anything to them because dying to them means paradise.

So your position is that we keep the military bases around the world 600+ so that we have a deterrent. Nuclear Weapons are only a deterrent to Russia and China and no other countries. I think I got your position.

Other questions to consider:

Could we consolidate some of these bases?

Which one is a greater threat to our liberty and freedom... the possible threat of some country bombing us or our massive debt?