Originally posted by litterbaux
reply to post by arbiture1200
National security? Are you kidding me? In case you were educated in the United States you might not know that there are oceans between us and the fake
enemies. Yes oceans, two of them, one on each side. Why on Earth would we bankrupt our country and put our civilians in direct danger by sending them
across oceans to protect us? Have you ever heard of thinning the troops? We are actually at more risk having our troops spread out over the globe
instead of at home.
Please answer me, I'm excited to see what kind of answer you have to this.
Please do read history, or how nations react to threats, or something along those lines. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
Oh, right. WW-2 never happened at least the United States couldn't be attacked because of our two great oceans. Thats early 19 century thinking, if
that., and even then with the British "abducting" American sailors from American ships, no match for the British Navy at the time of course, we
declared war and we were invaded and had our White House burned by the Brits.
You must be totally off center when now we can be hit by a submarine launched missile off our coasts, in as little as six minutes post launch. (A bit
longer for cruise missiles, but not much) Or hit by Russian land based ICBM's in about 22minutes. China in less then 50 minutes, and the rest just
have to be hidden in a ship or cargo container and then go off, with no warning.
As for having troops stationed overseas, I agree in a reduction but to have none is just plain asking for it. I don't want our troops where there not
wanted, enough countries WANT American troops on there soil, they have automatic back up by the full power we can obliterate anyone who screws with
that country and just "by accident" hits our troops. That is an accepted right-of-defense, and the world knows it
One reason when we do station troops overseas they are usually in the obvious line of fire. Ideally we station equipment, supplies, and other things
overseas, which we do by the way, and have a limited number troops. That works for me.
The original NATO and SEATO charter was never meant to be a play thing for the likes of G.W. Bush. His spreading NATO across the whole range of a free
Eastern Europe was crazy, lunacy. And was predicted to make the Russians nervous. Given the blood bath they have been through from Napoleon to Hitler
thats very understandable. And why I would have given certain support to newly freed nations of Eastern Europe, belonging to NATO means one very
important thing: Attack ANY member of NATO, and its an attack on the United States.
If you think its just all about giving everyone a nice big hug, well I have no problem with that. But I will back it up with something less pleasant.
Obama attempted to reach to every nation on Earth, in particular Iran and caught hell from the Republicans. They continue there lunacy, and now we
have to deal with them, or Israel will.
Given the fact only Israel has a "death fatwa" on it as a nation would make me very nervous to. And Israel will not wait for the US or anyone to tell
them what they must do if they face an imminent threat. Their intelligence services are much smaller then ours but they focus on the known threats.
And are very good. We focus on the world.
Why? Because we can't know were a threat is coming from we are after all a very big target. And the best way to prevent war which I have worked to do
all my adult life (not to mention a few other things)? Know any enemy, their capability and intentions way before we get "hit". And make it clear to
them they will get more then a bloody nose if we are f***** with. EVERY NATION on Earth has as its first duty the responsibility to protect its
people, everything else comes second. Everything.
Would you also remove our Naval force's? They have troops too.New arsenal ships are coming on line with fantastic conventional firepower, unmanned
attack and C$I drones,Marines, and Army can be quickly deployed, but not as easy if done so from only US territory Add to the fact it is known we do
station material and troops overseas with the permission of the host nation, who usually find it very much to their advantage NOT to advertise this,
and I concur 100%. Keep em all guessing, and many would be very surprised if they knew just which countries allowed the US to station troops there,
and often in most cases THEY ASKED the US.
Yes we need to be selective very much, where we station troops, but to not do so? if you think for a moment it would make any American safer if we did
not, smacks of hallucinatory/delusional thinking. And total lack of histories consequences. I don't want to make war, I want to prevent it. And not
having ovverseas troops and great conventional power? That leaves us with a greater likely hood to use nukes.Thats crazy.
edit on 5/2/12 by
arbiture1200 because: add stuff, and try to to calm down... I did...
edit on 5/2/12 by arbiture1200 because: correct