End of American Dream a Nightmare for Obama!

[skrewer]

Originally Posted by Lord Necronomis

Technically, you're right. In context, you're wrong. They were radical liberals for their time, yes, but the ideals they pushed for are the same ideals that conservatives push for now. Liberalism back in those days was "limit government control of money, limit big government, put power in the states and the people." Nowadays, it's almost gone full circle, with liberalism meaning the exact opposite. "Give the government your money, and we'll handle how it's spent. Leave thinking and laws up to the federal government."

Liberalism CAME from the word liberal, meaning free. It's just flopped because as we continue to move in a direction, the "conservatives" cling to the existing, which a generation before was the new. So the left has to have something else to pull in.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
<-- Democratic Socialist

First of all, I am glad someone pointed this out (so thank you necro), and I'm not too surprised that noone has discussed this post because of how sound it is. If there's nothing to pick apart, then why talk about it amirite?

Originally Posted by tom the pit leader

You want bloat in the government, look to the military. We spend just shy of more than everyone else in the world COMBINED on our military. Most of it geared towards wars that we will never fight, because the enemy doesn't exist.

The reason "the enemy doesn't exist" (which is something I find ludicrous) is because of the concept of nuclear deterrent; if we make our military hard to break, we're alot less likely to be attacked by another country in a frontal war. Thats why our enemies have reverted to guerrilla tactics (which is how you fight a much larger army) as shown by the terrorist attacks on Sept.11th.

If we decommission large portions of our military, then our enemies WILL become more bold in their demands/aggression/etc. both to the detriment of ourselves, and our allies.

[bitermer]

Originally Posted by skrewer

The reason "the enemy doesn't exist" (which is something I find ludicrous) is because of the concept of nuclear deterrent; if we make our military hard to break, we're alot less likely to be attacked by another country in a frontal war. Thats why our enemies have reverted to guerrilla tactics (which is how you fight a much larger army) as shown by the terrorist attacks on Sept.11th.

If we decommission large portions of our military, then our enemies WILL become more bold in their demands/aggression/etc. both to the detriment of ourselves, and our allies.

Really? I mean Really?? Please explain to me why Western Europe Hasn´t been attacked then. True, England and France have Nuclear capability, but they dont spend nearly as much as US. And if you´re going to use the NATO argument, please forget about it. Because Sweden and Switzerland, both nations without nuclear capability, have somehow managed to stay out of wars for about 200 years.

Furthermore which Country, and I say Country because terrorist attacks dont qualify as war, is going to invade/declare war on the US? Canada? Mexico? Somehow I doubt it, and those are the only two nations bordering the US.

Unless you think some country is going to decide to launch a naval invasion fleet, but please just tell me this - you say `the enemy doesnt exist` is bs - Who is this enemy that will hypothetically invade?

[Jooshbox234]

Originally Posted by bitermer

Really? I mean Really?? Please explain to me why Western Europe Hasn´t been attacked then. True, England and France have Nuclear capability, but they dont spend nearly as much as US. And if you´re going to use the NATO argument, please forget about it. Because Sweden and Switzerland, both nations without nuclear capability, have somehow managed to stay out of wars for about 200 years.

Furthermore which Country, and I say Country because terrorist attacks dont qualify as war, is going to invade/declare war on the US? Canada? Mexico? Somehow I doubt it, and those are the only two nations bordering the US.

Unless you think some country is going to decide to launch a naval invasion fleet, but please just tell me this - you say `the enemy doesnt exist` is bs - Who is this enemy that will hypothetically invade?

I know this will hurt some feelings, but no one gives a shit about Sweden or Switzerland (at least not terrorists or most other countries). The US is the biggest obstacle for terrorists, dictators and the like. China, Russia, North Korea, etc... they are all just itching to get a shot at the US. No matter how the media lies, they aren't all nice.

Basically, de-funding our army won't guarantee someone attacks us. What it will allow is terrorists to have free-er reign, and will allow China and Russia and others to catch up - and even surpass - our military.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by Jooshbox234

I know this will hurt some feelings, but no one gives a shit about Sweden or Switzerland (at least not terrorists or most other countries). The US is the biggest obstacle for terrorists, dictators and the like. China, Russia, North Korea, etc... they are all just itching to get a shot at the US. No matter how the media lies, they aren't all nice.

Basically, de-funding our army won't guarantee someone attacks us. What it will allow is terrorists to have free-er reign, and will allow China and Russia and others to catch up - and even surpass - our military.

In what world will a direct war with China or Russia not be nuclear? As for other conflicts, look at Sudan, the Congo, Myanmar, Mexico, etc..., the thing which most hinders us is national sovereignty. We don't act because legally we can't. Remember how long it took to dismantle most of the Taliban when we went all out? Less than 4 months. A fraction of our current power could end these fights, it's simply we can't/won't use it.

And the only things which currently impedes the terrorists is their lack of creativity and ability to make bombs that explode. There are more good targets in the US and good places to get the materials needed to launch an attack than could be named. There's no reason there hasn't been another attack other than there aren't nearly as many terrorists, if there are indeed terrorists at all, than we have been led to believe.

[bitermer]

Originally Posted by Jooshbox234

I know this will hurt some feelings, but no one gives a shit about Sweden or Switzerland (at least not terrorists or most other countries). The US is the biggest obstacle for terrorists, dictators and the like. China, Russia, North Korea, etc... they are all just itching to get a shot at the US. No matter how the media lies, they aren't all nice.

If China really wanted to, they could fuck the US over right now and call in the federal debt. Russia has its own concerns and seriously...north korea? They might have all of one nuke, if it even launches and works. As for a potential invasion fleet, I wouldnt be surprised if their soldiers ran out of rations and starved on the way over the pacific...

Originally Posted by Jooshbox234

Basically, de-funding our army won't guarantee someone attacks us. What it will allow is terrorists to have free-er reign, and will allow China and Russia and others to catch up - and even surpass - our military.

The military cant ´fight´terrorists because they arent soldiers. They dont just march down the street challenging people to take them on. Terrorists hide until they strike and just deviously bomb things. Theres nothign you can do about that, especially when its so easy for any lunatic to get a gun

China will surpass the US´s military in a few years or maybe a decade anyway, because they actually have enough money to afford military expenditures on that scale

[skrewer]

Originally Posted by bitermer

Really? I mean Really?? Please explain to me why Western Europe Hasn´t been attacked then. True, England and France have Nuclear capability, but they dont spend nearly as much as US. And if you´re going to use the NATO argument, please forget about it. Because Sweden and Switzerland, both nations without nuclear capability, have somehow managed to stay out of wars for about 200 years.

Furthermore which Country, and I say Country because terrorist attacks dont qualify as war, is going to invade/declare war on the US? Canada? Mexico? Somehow I doubt it, and those are the only two nations bordering the US.

Unless you think some country is going to decide to launch a naval invasion fleet, but please just tell me this - you say `the enemy doesnt exist` is bs - Who is this enemy that will hypothetically invade?

Herp Derp, yes I mean REALLY! Thus why I initially explained it. Western Europe hasn't been attacked because of the strength of their allies (especially the US). Think of it in terms of cybernations. Our BLOC is really strong, with tons of MDAP's between each alliance, all with chaining clauses. Swedan and Switzerland are like GPA used to be... neutral in conflict, just sat their with good economies. So for a loner alliance or smaller bloc of alliances , it doesn't make sense for them to openly attack us (after all, they'll get curbstomped while we'll take some damage) while we're at full strength. We've seen what happens when alliances decom. their military... not only do they lose PR, but they lose influence in international matters too.

Also, even a 14 year old is smart enough to never underestimate Russia/North Korea/China/Iran... I'm surprised at your naivety.

[Lord Necronomis]

watch the herping and derping, skrewer. you might catch an aneurysm.

[SickLaxBro]

Originally Posted by bitermer

Really? I mean Really?? Please explain to me why Western Europe Hasn´t been attacked then. True, England and France have Nuclear capability, but they dont spend nearly as much as US. And if you´re going to use the NATO argument, please forget about it. Because Sweden and Switzerland, both nations without nuclear capability, have somehow managed to stay out of wars for about 200 years.

Furthermore which Country, and I say Country because terrorist attacks dont qualify as war, is going to invade/declare war on the US? Canada? Mexico? Somehow I doubt it, and those are the only two nations bordering the US.

Unless you think some country is going to decide to launch a naval invasion fleet, but please just tell me this - you say `the enemy doesnt exist` is bs - Who is this enemy that will hypothetically invade?

I'd like to know why you say Western Europe, and not Europe in general.

NATO IS a military alliance after all. The whole point of a military alliance is to protect each other in case someone is attacked. They don't spend nearly as much on their military as we do because they don't need to. They're allied with us, and we're the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. They know that. Why spend billions of euros/pounds on your military when you're allied with a superpower?

Switzerland hasn't been invaded because it's remained neutral in world affairs, and because of its strategic location. Sorta hard for tanks to blitzkrieg through mountains, or for bombers to bomb mountain-side forts. As for Sweden, I honestly don't know.

It's ludicrous to say because you don't share a border with a country, that they can't invade you. Iraq is on the opposite side of the world, yet we still invaded them. Any country with a navy and the will to invade us could do so. Would they be successful? Most likely not.

Your last paragraph was so poorly written that I couldn't understand what you meant. However, if Russia or China wanted to, they could invade us, like I just explained in my above paragraph.

Originally Posted by bitermer

If China really wanted to, they could fuck the US over right now and call in the federal debt. Russia has its own concerns and seriously...north korea? They might have all of one nuke, if it even launches and works. As for a potential invasion fleet, I wouldnt be surprised if their soldiers ran out of rations and starved on the way over the pacific...

If China wanted to, they could call the debt and fuck us over. If we wanted to, we could stop buying Chinese goods and fuck them over. It works both ways mate.

Don't be naive about Russia. While they may not be as powerful as they once were, they could still fight a war with us if they wanted to.

No one said anything about North Korea. North Korea is not a threat to us. If North Korea tried fucking with us, we could level their entire country. The reason we haven't done so is because they could do the same thing to South Korea, who are heavily involved with economically.

Originally Posted by bitermer

The military cant ´fight´terrorists because they arent soldiers. They dont just march down the street challenging people to take them on. Terrorists hide until they strike and just deviously bomb things. Theres nothign you can do about that, especially when its so easy for any lunatic to get a gun

China will surpass the US´s military in a few years or maybe a decade anyway, because they actually have enough money to afford military expenditures on that scale

Cutting down on military spending means a smaller military. A smaller military means that you can't have as many soldiers patrolling the streets, which makes recruiting for terrorists so much easier. So smaller military = free-er reign for terrorists.

[DanDesade]

As an American president once said "its the economy stupid" - Bill Clinton. Forget about world powers going head to head with their military. small skirmishes maybe but everybody loses with an all out 'fuck you' war. Whereas money talks. If you have a superior economy you will dictate the direction of your country and others. If there is any question of that look at every other nation that's gone down the military route and see where it has got them. Then compare those same nations that have put just as much or more effort into their economy. Money wins everytime. Even the US is testament to that. Yes, they've gone to war on more than one occasion, but every single time they've done so they've done it with their economy in mind, either directly or indirectly. Iraq is the perfect example wherein it was done to secure a better foothold in the ME, promote democracy and fix oil reserve concerns. The war however went terribly because of the economic drain it placed on the nation and the resistance of those being invaded. nevertheless, the war was still fought due to economic concerns. had crude oil not been so important to the economy, Iraq would have suffered the same as in the first Gulf war where the first bush said thats enough, it'll take em ten years to recover. Any intelligent nation will put money first. Military is and always will be the last resort.

[bitermer]

Originally Posted by skrewer

Herp Derp, yes I mean REALLY! Thus why I initially explained it. Western Europe hasn't been attacked because of the strength of their allies (especially the US). Think of it in terms of cybernations. Our BLOC is really strong, with tons of MDAP's between each alliance, all with chaining clauses. Swedan and Switzerland are like GPA used to be... neutral in conflict, just sat their with good economies. So for a loner alliance or smaller bloc of alliances , it doesn't make sense for them to openly attack us (after all, they'll get curbstomped while we'll take some damage) while we're at full strength. We've seen what happens when alliances decom. their military... not only do they lose PR, but they lose influence in international matters too.

Also, even a 14 year old is smart enough to never underestimate Russia/North Korea/China/Iran... I'm surprised at your naivety.

The real world is nothing like cybernations kiddo. Sure, you might have blocs and alliances. But while we can nuke the shit out of each other in CN, nuclear capable nations like China or Russia will not attack the US or any nuclear capable nation as in real life, the principle of mutually assured destruction, or MAD, applies to nuclear warfare.

Western Europe hasnt been attacked because theres no country out there that has any incentive to attack Western Europe. The same can be said for the US. Sure, maybe Iran and North Korea would like the US to be out of this world, but they cant do shit about it and are a long way from being able to.