-
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!
America would be 'defenseless' under Obama's plan
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
jesusisawesome
New Member
Why should we spend money defending Poland? Give me one reason.Revmitchell said:
America is already overstretched. We should be talking about taking our troops out of the various countries we are in. We're in over 100 so you know.
Well, see, here's the quandary Pres-elect Obama is in: He, along with a lot of others, think we should be friendlier with a lot of nations around the world.
In fact, we were (are still?) friends with the country of Georgia; but they were invaded by Russia.
So what should we have done in that situation? We sent in some assistance, but not a full-on assault like we did with Afghanistan/Iraq.
So, what's your solution? Should we not be friends with Poland? And if we are friends with Poland, and they request military assistance, to include missile defense and maybe even a base, should we say, "we're not that good of friends"?
I'm sounding facetious, but I really do want to know your solution to this.
In fact, we were (are still?) friends with the country of Georgia; but they were invaded by Russia.
So what should we have done in that situation? We sent in some assistance, but not a full-on assault like we did with Afghanistan/Iraq.
So, what's your solution? Should we not be friends with Poland? And if we are friends with Poland, and they request military assistance, to include missile defense and maybe even a base, should we say, "we're not that good of friends"?
I'm sounding facetious, but I really do want to know your solution to this.
jesusisawesome
New Member
What does Poland matter?
Where in the Constitution does it state that the US has an obligation to protect a country that cannot protect itself? All it does is drive America into debt and pile it on the backs of future generations.
EDIT: To answer your question, we already have a base in Poland. And if Russia invaded (Who else is? Those conniving Serbians?) we would merely say, that sucks Poland. Let's hope you guys know how to fight. Not being in debt is awesome.
Where in the Constitution does it state that the US has an obligation to protect a country that cannot protect itself? All it does is drive America into debt and pile it on the backs of future generations.
EDIT: To answer your question, we already have a base in Poland. And if Russia invaded (Who else is? Those conniving Serbians?) we would merely say, that sucks Poland. Let's hope you guys know how to fight. Not being in debt is awesome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Revmitchell said:
Look hard enough and you can find an EXPERT to support any side of any argument on any subject. It means little Rev. But you complete prejudice certainly shows.
windcatcher
New Member
targus said:
Now, now, targus: We must be understanding with Crabby and allow for his limited vokaboolerray!:laugh:
Crabtownboy said:
Unlike you I am willing to be upfront about who I am. And it appears all I have to do is post an article without comment and I get under your skin. The prejudice is all yours.
targus said:
Come to think of it the title certainly does fit more than its own article.
Having missiles in Poland means that we have a strategic advantage over nations that are hostile to the U.S.jesusisawesome said:
Where they have to send their missiles half way round the world to strike, we're right next door. It would be like Russia having missiles in Cuba.
Um...what base does America already have in Poland? I've done some web searches, and can't find it.jesusisawesome said:
Based on the rest of your answer: So we should withdraw support from every other country we're currently allies with? Pull all the troops home, and let the rest of the world fend for itself?
You know that's not scriptural, right?
JustChristian
New Member
America Speaks Out
Is the United States spending too much on defense?
by Carl Conetta
Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Memo #41
26 March 2007
http://www.comw.org/pda/0703bm41.html
On 1-4 February 2007, the Gallup polling organization asked a representative sample of US citizens if they thought the United States was spending too little, too much, or just the right amount on defense and the military.1 For the first time since the mid-1990s, a plurality of Americans said that the country was spending too much. The surprising result of the survey shows current public attitudes to approximate those that prevailed in March 1993, shortly after former President Bill Clinton took office. Today, 43 percent of Americans say that the country is spending "too much" on the military, while 20 percent say "too little". In 1993, the balance of opinion was 42 percent saying "too much" and 17 percent saying "too little."
What makes this result especially surprising is that few leaders in Congress and no one in the administration today argues that the United States can or should reduce military spending. Quite the contrary: leaders of both parties seem eager to add to the Pentagon's coffers, even as public anti-war sentiment builds. And Congress is not the only institution that appears insensitive to the shift in public opinion. The Gallup survey also drew little attention from the news media. Indeed, a Lexis-Nexis database search shows almost no coverage of the poll, which was released on 02 March 2007.
Is the United States spending too much on defense?
by Carl Conetta
Project on Defense Alternatives Briefing Memo #41
26 March 2007
http://www.comw.org/pda/0703bm41.html
On 1-4 February 2007, the Gallup polling organization asked a representative sample of US citizens if they thought the United States was spending too little, too much, or just the right amount on defense and the military.1 For the first time since the mid-1990s, a plurality of Americans said that the country was spending too much. The surprising result of the survey shows current public attitudes to approximate those that prevailed in March 1993, shortly after former President Bill Clinton took office. Today, 43 percent of Americans say that the country is spending "too much" on the military, while 20 percent say "too little". In 1993, the balance of opinion was 42 percent saying "too much" and 17 percent saying "too little."
What makes this result especially surprising is that few leaders in Congress and no one in the administration today argues that the United States can or should reduce military spending. Quite the contrary: leaders of both parties seem eager to add to the Pentagon's coffers, even as public anti-war sentiment builds. And Congress is not the only institution that appears insensitive to the shift in public opinion. The Gallup survey also drew little attention from the news media. Indeed, a Lexis-Nexis database search shows almost no coverage of the poll, which was released on 02 March 2007.
LeBuick said:
Most huh.........
Revmitchell said:
It's no secret Bush is the primary leader pushing this shield. Not many feel it will serve its intended purpose and is mostly just serving to tick off the Russians.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/15675
LeBuick said:
Not many huh?