reply to post by seabag
First off, thanks for sharing your opinions, and if you're an Oath Keeper as indicated on your mini profile - god bless you and thanks for
that. As to what you said here:
From a military perspective I can tell you that it is very important to have a presence overseas. While deployed I had the opportunity to train
with soldiers, sailors and Marines from many different countries. The knowledge we gain and bonds we form from working together are invaluable. It
allows for cohesion when called upon to fight side by side in some unforeseen conflict in the future.
I personally wouldn't have a problem merely with our military training with those of other nations, but we're dealing with a different beast
altogether when we're going into other nations by way of military force instead of invitation, ending up in occupation/insurgency resistance
situations, and primarily killing civilians instead of actual hostiles (those hostiles usually not being of an ideological nature so much as a
resistance-to-occupation nature, it seems) - all while throwing money down the drain to the tune of billions or trillions with no tangible effect
beyond building unit cohesion for some possible future engagement - that we'll like start without much justification or verifiable facts, if history
is any indication.
Training is well and good to a point (when it doesn't end up mainly just being wasteful when we're trillions in the hole with 100+ trillion in
liabilities hanging over our heads like a financial sword of Damocles), hostilities and uninvited occupation - not so much.
It's not about warmongering or occupying countries. Our militaries train together...we're allies. You can't do that from here.
As mentioned above, I personally don't mind the agreeable relations so much (bases in Korea, presence in Germany, and so forth) even if I consider it
unnecessary and wasteful - if we were on a better financial footing I would probably say well and good.
As is, it's a drain flushing away money we honestly don't have, as well as a mild form of sabre rattling and unneeded projection of strength and
control when we have our outposts stationed in areas of strategic import so as to make countries we like to dislike one way or another (North Korea,
China, Russia, etc.) nervous and likely to line up sights or otherwise make plans regarding ourselves.
And it doesn't provoke other countries. If that is true then please tell me how many countries have attacked us here lately?
Not all attacks are material and military, nor do they happen in the short order. Our actions around the world have been leading to all sorts of fun
in the political realm, stirring up general world-wide feelings of anti-americanism, and are likely a direct contributing factor in the massive
military buildup China's been working on for some time, Iran's DESIRE to get the bomb - if they in fact do want to get it (back an animal into the
corner or always have it under the threat of abuse, and it likely WILL bite eventually), and a whole range of other fun counter plays to what we've
As far as countries we're directly in or attacking and saying this doesn't prompt retaliation - well, first off, simply look at it from a common
sense perspective. That's all it takes. You pick on someone, wreck their house, and crap on their lawn, and they're going to hate you for it.
Enough that they might eventually want to act on that hate (and as-is, it's plenty easy for them to just take that out on our troops, as well as
fulfill Bin Laden's predictive letter advising they'll bleed us out financially just like they did the russians, to no real effect. A smashing job
we've done playing RIGHT into that one, to the tune of multiple trillions so far...so much of it borrowed from various sources and merely putting us
further in debt and off-track).
Additionally - Paul's not the only one saying this. He can see the common sense of it on its face, but he's also agreeing with the CIA (including
the former head of their Bin Laden unit), the 9/11 Commission (regardless of how much they otherwise disregarded, were deceived on, or simply got
wrong), and the testimony of the hostiles themselves. Blowback simply is a reality, and we deserve exactly what we get if we choose to ignore that
To say that military aggression and generally acting like a dick won't breed animosity is simply silly, in my opinion, and shows a complete disregard
for the obvious facts of human nature.
Take care, and thanks again. Just providing thoughts here.