Is anyone surprised?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Poll: Even in GOP, little appetite for military involvement in Ukraine
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
When a pollster uses the term "military involvement" the respondent goes immediately to "boots on the ground," which therefore means the poll results are skewed.
That doesn't have to be the level involvement represented by "military involvement." It can mean troop maneuvers in Poland, a carrier group in the Black Sea, close fly-bys of the Crimean coast by B-1 and/or B-52 bombers, U.S. Rangers and SEALS on the ground in Ukraine training their Special Forces, and other similar "show of force" acts. None of those have to lead to conflict. In fact, the more of them done, the less likely Putin is to try to move into the rest of Ukraine, given he will have had constant reminders that compared to U.S. military power, his sucks.
Ask the respondents to the poll if they'd accept that level of involvement, and most will say "yes," as polls over the last few days show the general public favors some "saber rattling."
Last edited by a moderator:
We do not need to be involved in it at all. We do not have the money.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Sure we do. We're just spending it in the wrong places. We can afford a bit of saber rattling by eliminating these expenses*:
Mass Destruction of Functional Weapons: $7 billion
Popular Romance Education: $914,000
Sugar Industry Subsidies: $171.5 million
Furloughed Non-Essential Federal Workers Paid For Not Working: At least $400 million
Superman Propaganda: $10 million
Obamacare, Healthcare.gov: At least $379 million
Wasted funds on Indian land leases: $32 million
Portrait expense for virtually every allegedly major figure in Washington: $50,000/each
* From Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-Oklahoma) [URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/192070449/192039604-Wastebook-2013FINAL]Wastebook 2013[/URL] documentation of federal government budget waste.
Until our debt is completely paid off and we have a balanced budget we cannot afford anything.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Again, that's the wonderful thing about having a private banking cartel willing to loan all the interest bearing fiat money created from nothing the government asks for.
Another war? No problem just put it on the tab. Better to keep raising the debt ceiling than taxes! :thumbsup:
So much for a balanced budget, eh?
Another war? No problem just put it on the tab. Better to keep raising the debt ceiling than taxes! :thumbsup:
So much for a balanced budget, eh?
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
As with Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes there is no choice. We cannot allow a reconstituted Soviet empire to be reborn without challenging the notion that is a good idea.
There is a choice. The choice is to borrow more money, go over there and deal with it and put our country in financial ruin or not. That is the choice.
poncho
Well-Known Member
Iraq was the real target all along, Afghanistan and OBL was just the cover story and "pretext". The neocons used the shock of awe of 9/11 to get "the people" behind them and then pulled the old bait and switch on us to get what they really wanted. A pliable vassal state and dollar hegemony in Iraq but it didn't work out like they "guaranteed" it would.
But then lying and covering their lies was always what they were best at.
What was it G. W. said after a dying OBL fled the scene with his kidney machine on a donkey over the icy Hindu Kush mountains into Pakistan?
"OBL ain't even on my radar anymore" or something to that affect.
The neocons chose to neoliberate Iraq instead of winning the war they started in Afghanistan.
At what cost?
Last edited by a moderator:
No, we do not need to be involved militarily in the Ukraine!
FWIW, we also do not need to be militarily involved in any other conflicts that are taking place in various other parts of the world.
The US does not and should not be viewed as this world's "policeman"!!
We already have enough problems of our own with which to deal. Moreover, we need to immediately stop wasting our limited human and monetary resources on what are (for the most part) useless and ill-advised governmental boondoggles!!
With the way things are going, the idea of getting the US out of the United Nations (and vice versa) seems more and more appealing to me as each day passes!! :thumbs: :BangHead::tonofbricks:
poncho
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 3/10/14: Can We Afford Ukraine?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1l-q0RIi7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1l-q0RIi7s
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Because giving $8 million a day to the only assured friendly nation in the middle of the most unfriendly place in the world toward freedom, democracy, and liberty makes all the sense in the world, that's why.Wonder why ol' Tom forgot to mention this one?:
We do not have it to give.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
So you and others keep saying. I say, we can't afford not to. Find other places to cut. Defense and intelligence are the last places in the budget that should be cut.
So long as there is 1 single dollar in debt we have no money. Big spenders like yourself do not seem to realize what all this debt does. There are enough places to make cuts. When you are in debt what you do is stop spending. Period
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Inept description. I favor a balanced budget and limited government. In Washington's and Adam's administrations, defense was 75% of the budget. Entitlements are now 75% of the budget. We can't even cut them. They are automatic. They need to be eliminated at the root. There is no other choice. If we want to maintain freedom and not be threatened by thugs such as Putin, Hassan Rouhani, Kim Jong-Un, Nicolás Maduro, and others of their ilk, we must maintain a strong defense. As I've said, there are other areas in which we can cut the budget. Start there. But at times when thuggery threatens the world's peace, do what has to be done. There is no choice, unless we want to live with a neo-Soviet Union and China as the two superpowers in this world. Our current foreign policy makes that a certainty.
The Little Marxist Dictator's budget makes defense our lowest priority. Planning only for homeland defense is idiotic. By the time it is necessary to defend the homeland, the rest of the world will be lost. There has to be one superpower willing to stand for the rights and freedoms of others who cannot make that stand for themselves, or alone. That country has to be the United States. We are the only country so committed and so armed to be able to do so. Whether we have the money or not is beside the point. We cannot allow the forces of tyranny and enslavement to once again rule half the world. That is a reality with which the world cannot live.
We must adopt at all times Ronald Reagan's philosophy of "Peace through strength." There is no other choice. Yes, it costs money. Is freedom, liberty and democracy not worth having to cut out the other luxuries we've allowed those unwilling to work to enjoy? I believe it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
We certainly can save money by not wasting in on many domestic programs. However, we spend more on the military than the next 10 or so nations combined, and do we really need to garrison the entire planet with hundreds of military bases (when we are between two large oceans)? And waste more of our young folks' lives and our nation's treasure on all these military misadventures half a world away? We can save a ton or money by just defending our own border and drawing back significantly in the rest of the world.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Thus surrendering the rest of the world to tyranny. Great idea. Let me know how that works out.
What a dawg-faced deception:
The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans
Excerpt:
"If Israel were using these funds for a good purpose, one could debate whether the price was worth it. But Israel uses most of the money to prolong a 45-year military occupation (which regularly involves gross violations of international law),[49] commit egregious human rights violations,[50] and destroy billions of dollars worth of Palestinian homes and infrastructure[51] (resulting in still more U.S. tax money being sent to Palestinians to rebuild demolished homes, hospitals, and schools), while building illegal Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land.[52]
It makes the prospect of peace ever more distant, creates dangerous hostility to the US, placing Americans in peril, and puts the US Congress in violation of the Arms Export Control Act,[53] all for the sake of campaign contributions.
There is no good reason to keep throwing good money after bad in a failed, ill-founded policy. It's long past time for a fundamental rethinking of the American government's blank check to Israel."
And this "fundamental rethinking" is actually beginning to transpire:
The National Summit to Reassess the U.S.—Israel "Special Relationship!"
Israel lobby major factor in all US policies and statements: Alison Weir
"There are things happening in the US that are starting to be a factor: on Friday there is going to be a national summit in which high level experts, national security experts, former CIA analysts, a number of academic scholars and former Congress people and other authors will be for the first time assessing the US Israel relationship and how it impacts Americans."
"This is an unprecedented gathering. More and more Americans will be paying attention to it and will be discussing what these policies mean for the United States rather than for Israel and that will no doubt affect the relations with Iran and those policies concerning Iran as well as other places."
Last edited by a moderator: