Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Ever think that the possibility of making "exponential leaps in technology" might have something to do with their culture?  The same might be said of their quality of life and infrastructure.  Hmm...  I think that we managed to make "exponential leaps in technology" ourselves since WWII.  Just off the top of my head, putting man on the moon, modern computers and cell phones, the C programming language, and the internet immediately come to mind.  What about stealth technology and modern aviation?

 

They had to start from point 0 after WW2, Even then do we really think we're better off technologically or even educationally then the Japanese? They learned a hard lesson in WW2 trying to impose your view, your will on the rest of the world leads to the end of ALL empires. Since WW2 that culture has focused on addressing their issues within while we've assumed the role of the worlds enforcer and judge of all things good and evil. Perhaps we should ask the Japanese how that ends? 

Quote:We funded a big part of the Arab Spring, we armed the Syrian rebels directly and there was calls for us to do even more, that is the exact opposite of non-intervention? 

 

Again, trying to bring this thread somewhat back on topic, that was done under the current President's regime.  Ironically, the Syrian rebels were fighting against an oppressive government.

Quote:Nobody said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on 9/11.  Here are the facts.

 

1.  Saddam Hussein was using WMD on his own people and committing genocide.  The genocide thing is the same thing that Kim Jong Il was doing to his own people in Korea.  Were we wrong to get involved in that conflict?

 

2.  Saddam Hussein had previously invaded another country, thus destabilizing the region and threatening not only our supply of oil, but supplies to the rest of the world.

 

3.  The current mess in Iraq is a result of not following plans in the country once Saddam Hussein was removed.  The "bring our boys home" crowd along with the change of Presidency is what has caused the results that we see now in that country.

 

I guess my point of view is different than most people because a) I served during the first "Gulf War" and have spent most of my post-military career working closely with the military, and am privy to some stuff that the average person isn't.  I can't and wont go into detail, but let's just say that I understand why we do certain things with our military in this and other regions.

We are talking about the same Sadaam the US armed and funded at one time... To fight Iran I guess. Now Iran is an ally by proxy fighting ISIS. So..we fight and kill someone one day, then align with them another. Makes sense in a somewhat insane thought process.

I too am privy to some information which isn't shared publicly. And I can assure you, many guys who were there realized within a few weeks that they were whizzing in the proverbial dust storm. Akin to a veterinarian trying and trying to change spots on a leopard.

It's a dirty world. Speculation on invasions include greed, power, oil, redemption, revenge. If we invaded every area of the world who was run by a piece of [BAD WORD REMOVED] it would be 24/7/365 conflict.

We will agree to disagree. Sadaam was the devil we knew. Knocking him out has done zippo but totally destabilize the region to what only be termed as chaos.

Quote:They had to start from point 0 after WW2, Even then do we really think we're better off technologically or even educationally then the Japanese? They learned a hard lesson in WW2 trying to impose your view, your will on the rest of the world leads to the end of ALL empires. Since WW2 that culture has focused on addressing their issues within while we've assumed the role of the worlds enforcer and judge of all things good and evil. Perhaps we should ask the Japanese how that ends? 

 

You can't just "cherry pick" certain facts without looking back at history.  For many years products coming out of Japan were pretty much "junk".  It wasn't until the development of technology that we came up with that their technology improved.  I don't know exactly how old you are, but back in the 70's the Datsun cars and trucks produced were pretty much junk.  We actually developed better vehicles back then and continued to do so until around the 90's or so.  We did this even though we were involved in not only two major conflicts (Korea and Vietnam), but also in a Cold War with the Soviets.

 

During the same time frame we have also developed powerful weapons such as stealth technology, ICBM's, a fleet of the most powerful warships that the world has seen, etc.  Also since that time frame (from WWII to modern times) we have also become a very wealthy nation, and have a much better lifestyle and standard of living than most of the world.  The average "poor" person here is much better off than an "average" citizen of most countries.

 

I guess my point is, you can't use Japan as a model for what our country should become.  We need a true leader that can harness the power of the people of this country, and bring us back to the greatness that we once achieved.  An "isolationist" or a "non-involvement" person is not what we need.

Quote:We are talking about the same Sadaam the US armed and funded at one time... To fight Iran I guess. Now Iran is an ally by proxy fighting ISIS. So..we fight and kill someone one day, then align with them another. Makes sense in a somewhat insane thought process.

I too am privy to some information which isn't shared publicly. And I can assure you, many guys who were there realized within a few weeks that they were whizzing in the proverbial dust storm. Akin to a veterinarian trying and trying to change spots on a leopard.

It's a dirty world. Speculation on invasions include greed, power, oil, redemption, revenge. If we invaded every area of the world who was run by a piece of [BAD WORD REMOVED] it would be 24/7/365 conflict.

We will agree to disagree. Sadaam was the devil we knew. Knocking him out has done zippo but totally destabilize the region to what only be termed as chaos.

 

I will agree to disagree for the most part.

 

I don't doubt that the guys that are/were there are of the opinion that you stated.  I had the opportunity a few months back to work with some of them directly, and I do know that they hate it there and wish that their hands weren't "tied" so much.

 

However, removing Saddam Hussein from power is not the reason that the region is so screwed up right now.

Quote:Again, trying to bring this thread somewhat back on topic, that was done under the current President's regime.  Ironically, the Syrian rebels were fighting against an oppressive government.

 

I see very little difference between Bush and Obama's foreign policy, they are both very much interventionist. My point was the Arab Spring which we both agree was bad news all the way around was the result of more intervention not a non-intervention policy.  

 

Quote:You can't just "cherry pick" certain facts without looking back at history.  For many years products coming out of Japan were pretty much "junk".  It wasn't until the development of technology that we came up with that their technology improved.  I don't know exactly how old you are, but back in the 70's the Datsun cars and trucks produced were pretty much junk.  We actually developed better vehicles back then and continued to do so until around the 90's or so.  We did this even though we were involved in not only two major conflicts (Korea and Vietnam), but also in a Cold War with the Soviets.

 

During the same time frame we have also developed powerful weapons such as stealth technology, ICBM's, a fleet of the most powerful warships that the world has seen, etc.  Also since that time frame (from WWII to modern times) we have also become a very wealthy nation, and have a much better lifestyle and standard of living than most of the world.  The average "poor" person here is much better off than an "average" citizen of most countries.

 

I guess my point is, you can't use Japan as a model for what our country should become.  We need a true leader that can harness the power of the people of this country, and bring us back to the greatness that we once achieved.  An "isolationist" or a "non-involvement" person is not what we need.

 

We can agree to disagree, I think more of the same is only going to result in more of the same results. Less foreign intervention is what I seek and it's what I'll vote for. To me smaller government goes hand in hand with less foreign intervention. That is my ultimate goal to see government reduced in every role. 

Quote:Nobody said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on 9/11.  Here are the facts.

 

1.  Saddam Hussein was using WMD on his own people and committing genocide.  The genocide thing is the same thing that Kim Jong Il was doing to his own people in Korea.  Were we wrong to get involved in that conflict?

 

2.  Saddam Hussein had previously invaded another country, thus destabilizing the region and threatening not only our supply of oil, but supplies to the rest of the world.

 

3.  The current mess in Iraq is a result of not following plans in the country once Saddam Hussein was removed.  The "bring our boys home" crowd along with the change of Presidency is what has caused the results that we see now in that country.

 

I guess my point of view is different than most people because a) I served during the first "Gulf War" and have spent most of my post-military career working closely with the military, and am privy to some stuff that the average person isn't.  I can't and wont go into detail, but let's just say that I understand why we do certain things with our military in this and other regions.

I think the 9/11 reference and Saddam Hussein have been muddied by those opposed to the war from the get go.  We were fighting a war in the region in response to 9/11, but on a completely different front.  The entire situation in Iraq blew up as a result of his refusal to allow UN inspectors into the country to investigate suspected sites for WMD production/storage.  Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution that had been in place since the first Gulf War by refusing to allow inspectors into the country.  The recourse for doing so was military intervention. 

 

Other motivations that are spun via conspiracy theories are fun to toss back and forth between those opposed to the war, but at the end of the day Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions 687 and 1441. 

 

What's funny is that those opposed to the war have repeatedly leaned on the fact that supposedly no WMDs were found.  When that was debunked and it was reported years later that there were indeed several sites that were secured where weapons caches were found including Mustard Gas and other WMDs, it was barely reported on by the MSM.  One of the facilities that was still under guard contained tons of degraded but still dangerous material was overrun and under the control of ISIS following the withdrawal of the US, and the subsequent expansion of the terror organizations geographical domain in their quest for a caliphate. Iraqi security had assumed the responsibility of protecting these weapons.

 

I posted the NY Times article where they documented the WMD found since the end of the war, and the lengths that Iraq went to to hide them.  It then did what you'd expect the NY Times to do, dismissing the revelation that tons of material was found because they didn't want to admit there was the potential that the Bush administration was right, and that rather than announce these discoveries, they were more intent to secure the weapons and assure that they were destroyed, or at the very least secured. 

 

Iraq was stable when the troops were withdrawn.  The current administration took great pride in the fact that they ended the war despite the fact that the draw down was planned well before they were elected.  Of course, they denied they were responsible for the draw down and end of the war when they had to send troops back in last year.  There's a great video of the president campaigning in 2008 and taking full credit for ending the war in Iraq, then denying it was his decision in 2014. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c

 

There were certainly mistakes made by the Bush administration in the execution of the war, but when he made the decision to do the surge that ultimately ended the conflict, part of the plan was to create a withdrawal plan that would draw down the troops but leave behind a small number of troops to assure stability in the country.  When Obama took office, he abandoned that in order to appease the Iraqi government. Initially, they were going to go along with the plan crafted by the Bush administration to leave a residual force in country to help keep the peace, but that this position became a political liability both in Iraq as well as here in the US, so he caved and agreed to withdraw completely.  We did so leaving behind equipment, weapons, and nobody to guard those stockpiles other than Iraqi security forces which proved to be inept, especially when faced with the prospect of having to fight fellow Arabs. 

 

 

Quote:Using WMD against people, yes it might have been 15 years prior or so.  However, the "ethnic cleansing" and atrocities continued into the 90's.

 

His sons were worse than he was in that regard.  The rape rooms. The torture.  All of the atrocities that took place AFTER the first Gulf War.  Truly horrific.

 

The shame of this was that we did ally ourselves with him up to 1991, and turned a blind eye to the horrors that took place under his regime.  We saw them as allies against the Soviet backed Iran prior to that point,  The Cold War was still in full throat, and the US was willing to partner with anyone who opposed anything pro USSR.  Once the first Gulf War concluded, that was a very different story.  The Cold War was over.  We didn't need to rely on them any longer.  Hussein saw both the Kurds and the Shiites as direct threats to an Arab Iraq, and he never stopped looking for ways to diminish their numbers. 

 

Back to the original point of this topic (sort of), the next person who sits in the Oval Office is going to inherit a dysfunctional US National Security / Foreign Policy situation that is going to require actual leadership to fix.  That doesn't mean we need a hawk in the White House who is going to unleash the military on the world, but the US can't create a vacuum of leadership on a global scale by completely withdrawing.  We're seeing firsthand what happens when we do exactly that right now.  Russia and China are filling that void, and they're definitely not looking out for the best interests of the US.  The next president is going to have to reset that situation quickly and with great resolve.  I don't know which candidate best fits that role, but I do know that those who have announced on the democrat side sure as heck aren't equipped.  Hillary is completely compromised by her own corruption, Sanders is a loon, and O'Malley is a light weight who doesn't have a clue. If one of these (or Warren) get elected, this country is pretty much toast.  I'm not sure it's any better looking at those running on the other side.

Quote:I see very little difference between Bush and Obama's foreign policy, they are both very much interventionist. My point was the Arab Spring which we both agree was bad news all the way around was the result of more intervention not a non-intervention policy.  

 

 

We can agree to disagree, I think more of the same is only going to result in more of the same results. Less foreign intervention is what I seek and it's what I'll vote for. To me smaller government goes hand in hand with less foreign intervention. That is my ultimate goal to see government reduced in every role. 

 

I'll agree to disagree with you as well, but a couple of points.

 

There is a vast difference between President Bush and President Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  President Bush acted aggressively to any threats/situations and did not hesitate, and was not afraid to speak his mind regarding it.

 

President Obama on the other hand, projects the image of being a pacifist and has the idea that we should "apologize" to the world.  Perhaps if we are "nice" and apologize "they won't be so mean to us".  He also strikes me and confirms to me that he has no idea what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy or relations.  Big difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

While not intervening would be a "perfect ideal", it's simply not practical.

Quote:I think the 9/11 reference and Saddam Hussein have been muddied by those opposed to the war from the get go.  We were fighting a war in the region in response to 9/11, but on a completely different front.  The entire situation in Iraq blew up as a result of his refusal to allow UN inspectors into the country to investigate suspected sites for WMD production/storage.  Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution that had been in place since the first Gulf War by refusing to allow inspectors into the country.  The recourse for doing so was military intervention. 

 

Other motivations that are spun via conspiracy theories are fun to toss back and forth between those opposed to the war, but at the end of the day Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions 687 and 1441. 

 

What's funny is that those opposed to the war have repeatedly leaned on the fact that supposedly no WMDs were found.  When that was debunked and it was reported years later that there were indeed several sites that were secured where weapons caches were found including Mustard Gas and other WMDs, it was barely reported on by the MSM.  One of the facilities that was still under guard contained tons of degraded but still dangerous material was overrun and under the control of ISIS following the withdrawal of the US, and the subsequent expansion of the terror organizations geographical domain in their quest for a caliphate. Iraqi security had assumed the responsibility of protecting these weapons.

 

I posted the NY Times article where they documented the WMD found since the end of the war, and the lengths that Iraq went to to hide them.  It then did what you'd expect the NY Times to do, dismissing the revelation that tons of material was found because they didn't want to admit there was the potential that the Bush administration was right, and that rather than announce these discoveries, they were more intent to secure the weapons and assure that they were destroyed, or at the very least secured. 

 

Iraq was stable when the troops were withdrawn.  The current administration took great pride in the fact that they ended the war despite the fact that the draw down was planned well before they were elected.  Of course, they denied they were responsible for the draw down and end of the war when they had to send troops back in last year.  There's a great video of the president campaigning in 2008 and taking full credit for ending the war in Iraq, then denying it was his decision in 2014. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c

 

There were certainly mistakes made by the Bush administration in the execution of the war, but when he made the decision to do the surge that ultimately ended the conflict, part of the plan was to create a withdrawal plan that would draw down the troops but leave behind a small number of troops to assure stability in the country.  When Obama took office, he abandoned that in order to appease the Iraqi government. Initially, they were going to go along with the plan crafted by the Bush administration to leave a residual force in country to help keep the peace, but that this position became a political liability both in Iraq as well as here in the US, so he caved and agreed to withdraw completely.  We did so leaving behind equipment, weapons, and nobody to guard those stockpiles other than Iraqi security forces which proved to be inept, especially when faced with the prospect of having to fight fellow Arabs. 

 

 

 

His sons were worse than he was in that regard.  The rape rooms. The torture.  All of the atrocities that took place AFTER the first Gulf War.  Truly horrific.

 

The shame of this was that we did ally ourselves with him up to 1991, and turned a blind eye to the horrors that took place under his regime.  We saw them as allies against the Soviet backed Iran prior to that point,  The Cold War was still in full throat, and the US was willing to partner with anyone who opposed anything pro USSR.  Once the first Gulf War concluded, that was a very different story.  The Cold War was over.  We didn't need to rely on them any longer.  Hussein saw both the Kurds and the Shiites as direct threats to an Arab Iraq, and he never stopped looking for ways to diminish their numbers. 

 

Back to the original point of this topic (sort of), the next person who sits in the Oval Office is going to inherit a dysfunctional US National Security / Foreign Policy situation that is going to require actual leadership to fix.  That doesn't mean we need a hawk in the White House who is going to unleash the military on the world, but the US can't create a vacuum of leadership on a global scale by completely withdrawing.  We're seeing firsthand what happens when we do exactly that right now.  Russia and China are filling that void, and they're definitely not looking out for the best interests of the US.  The next president is going to have to reset that situation quickly and with great resolve.  I don't know which candidate best fits that role, but I do know that those who have announced on the democrat side sure as heck aren't equipped.  Hillary is completely compromised by her own corruption, Sanders is a loon, and O'Malley is a light weight who doesn't have a clue. If one of these (or Warren) get elected, this country is pretty much toast.  I'm not sure it's any better looking at those running on the other side.

 

Very good analysis and very well put.  I also agree with you that we don't appear to have a candidate for President that can do what needs to be done.

Quote:I'll agree to disagree with you as well, but a couple of points.

 

There is a vast difference between President Bush and President Obama when it comes to foreign policy.  President Bush acted aggressively to any threats/situations and did not hesitate, and was not afraid to speak his mind regarding it.

 

President Obama on the other hand, projects the image of being a pacifist and has the idea that we should "apologize" to the world.  Perhaps if we are "nice" and apologize "they won't be so mean to us".  He also strikes me and confirms to me that he has no idea what he is doing when it comes to foreign policy or relations.  Big difference as far as I'm concerned.

 

While not intervening would be a "perfect ideal", it's simply not practical.

 

Sure they sing different songs, but it all boils down to their both willing to insert our military into foreign regional conflicts. Like I said they're both very much foreign interventionist, it's a policy that has never worked and more of the same isn't going to change that.

 

I'm all for letting Russia and China step into that black hole, let them bleed their economies and waste their lives in the middles east. 

Quote:Sure they sing different songs, but it all boils down to their both willing to insert our military into foreign regional conflicts. Like I said they're both very much foreign interventionist, it's a policy that has never worked and more of the same isn't going to change that.

 

I'm all for letting Russia and China step into that black hole, let them bleed their economies and waste their lives in the middles east. 

 

The problem is, neither Russia nor China is getting involved to resolve the problem(s) there.  To say that intervention "never worked", how has it worked out for South Korea?  I would argue that the U.S. intervention during the Korean War has worked out just fine for South Korea.  As of matter of fact, it's been helpful to us with the products that we currently import from them.

Quote:The problem is, neither Russia nor China is getting involved to resolve the problem(s) there.  To say that intervention "never worked", how has it worked out for South Korea?  I would argue that the U.S. intervention during the Korean War has worked out just fine for South Korea.  As of matter of fact, it's been helpful to us with the products that we currently import from them.

 

No I don't think Korea is a good example of interventionism working, the idea of the Korean war was to prevent the spread of communism into the South which has required our constant presence since the conclusion of that war. North Korea is still as dangerous and as much of a problem as they where before if not more. It hasn't changed anything for the people living in the North, there's still an oppressive horrible regime doing horrible things in Korea. 

 

Perhaps our involvement has reduced the people being effected the people of the South remain free, but I ask again why is it our responsibility to ensure all people of the world are free? 

Quote:Sure they sing different songs, but it all boils down to their both willing to insert our military into foreign regional conflicts. Like I said they're both very much foreign interventionist, it's a policy that has never worked and more of the same isn't going to change that.

 

I'm all for letting Russia and China step into that black hole, let them bleed their economies and waste their lives in the middles east. 

I'm curious about something.  If the United States sees what you've defined as a "regional conflict" as something more than that, should we get involved?  For example, WWII was pretty much a regional conflict up until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  They did so because of an embargo the US had placed on them which was squeezing their oil resources to the limit, preventing them from expanding their power any deeper into Asia.  Again, that triggered WWII.  Yet, as Japan bombed us, we entered the conflict in Europe, basically fighting two wars at the same time.  Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of that regional conflict in Europe and ceded it to Germany?  Heck, isn't that what the Brits did when they sent Neville Chamberlain to negotiate a deal with Germany that assured there was no interest in expanding their military involvement beyond Czechoslovakia?  "As long as you don't invade us, and you promise to stay in the regions you say you will, we're okay with that."  That worked out well.

 

The mindset you express in saying you're fine with letting Russia and China step into the void created by our pulling back is pretty much the same viewpoint that allowed the Soviet Union and China to expand their sphere of influence and oppression, and to murder tens of millions of people in the process.  

 

Mao Zedong, a guy that progressives today love to put on t-shirts and idolize, was responsible for tens of millions of lives being lost under his reign.  There are some who have served in the current administration who have expressed admiration for what Mao Zedong represented. 

 

In the Soviet union, between 1917 and the mid 1950's, they also tortured and murdered tens of millions.  The United States knew they'd have a problem with them during WWII, which is why many Nazi scientists who were involved in German missile technology were ushered out of Germany and given safe harbor in the US.  That certainly helped with our missile and space programs, so there was some motivation there, but there was also a lack of trust with our ally during WWII. 

 

The US can't go off and strong arm every potential conflict, but it also can't just stand back and allow the Soviet Union to re-form, or for China to expand their domain. 

 

What is truly scary about allowing either of these powers to expand their footprint into regions like the middle east is that they will no doubt help support regimes who have nothing but ill intent for the US and our interests.  That can't be ignored, and it won't go away if we just pull back and focus on our borders (which we're not really defending anyway).

 

I think it's incredibly naive to think that we should just allow these countries to fill that void. 

 

Whoever this country decides to elect to lead the nation in 2016 needs to have a firm grasp of what the role of this country is on a global scale.  They don't need to be a hawk who wants to send our troops and resources into truly regional conflicts.  But, they do need to have a good sense for which of those conflicts has the potential to become a real issue for this country or our interests/allies in the Middle East and Europe.  If you cede the Middle East to China and Russia, you're basically opening the door to more of the kind of chaos we're seeing now in the Middle East, and it will be allowed to spread.  As it does, allies like Israel and Jordan are directly in the cross hairs,  Giving up and pulling back from this ultimately leads to the spread of oppression into Europe and even Africa.  At what point does the US get involved in your international vision? 

Quote:I'm curious about something.  If the United States sees what you've defined as a "regional conflict" as something more than that, should we get involved?  For example, WWII was pretty much a regional conflict up until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.  They did so because of an embargo the US had placed on them which was squeezing their oil resources to the limit, preventing them from expanding their power any deeper into Asia.  Again, that triggered WWII.  Yet, as Japan bombed us, we entered the conflict in Europe, basically fighting two wars at the same time.  Are you suggesting we should have stayed out of that regional conflict in Europe and ceded it to Germany?  Heck, isn't that what the Brits did when they sent Neville Chamberlain to negotiate a deal with Germany that assured there was no interest in expanding their military involvement beyond Czechoslovakia?  "As long as you don't invade us, and you promise to stay in the regions you say you will, we're okay with that."  That worked out well.

 

The mindset you express in saying you're fine with letting Russia and China step into the void created by our pulling back is pretty much the same viewpoint that allowed the Soviet Union and China to expand their sphere of influence and oppression, and to murder tens of millions of people in the process.  

 

Mao Zedong, a guy that progressives today love to put on t-shirts and idolize, was responsible for tens of millions of lives being lost under his reign.  There are some who have served in the current administration who have expressed admiration for what Mao Zedong represented. 

 

In the Soviet union, between 1917 and the mid 1950's, they also tortured and murdered tens of millions.  The United States knew they'd have a problem with them during WWII, which is why many Nazi scientists who were involved in German missile technology were ushered out of Germany and given safe harbor in the US.  That certainly helped with our missile and space programs, so there was some motivation there, but there was also a lack of trust with our ally during WWII. 

 

The US can't go off and strong arm every potential conflict, but it also can't just stand back and allow the Soviet Union to re-form, or for China to expand their domain. 

 

What is truly scary about allowing either of these powers to expand their footprint into regions like the middle east is that they will no doubt help support regimes who have nothing but ill intent for the US and our interests.  That can't be ignored, and it won't go away if we just pull back and focus on our borders (which we're not really defending anyway).

 

I think it's incredibly naive to think that we should just allow these countries to fill that void. 

 

Whoever this country decides to elect to lead the nation in 2016 needs to have a firm grasp of what the role of this country is on a global scale.  They don't need to be a hawk who wants to send our troops and resources into truly regional conflicts.  But, they do need to have a good sense for which of those conflicts has the potential to become a real issue for this country or our interests/allies in the Middle East and Europe.  If you cede the Middle East to China and Russia, you're basically opening the door to more of the kind of chaos we're seeing now in the Middle East, and it will be allowed to spread.  As it does, allies like Israel and Jordan are directly in the cross hairs,  Giving up and pulling back from this ultimately leads to the spread of oppression into Europe and even Africa.  At what point does the US get involved in your international vision? 

 

Very true and is also an example of how Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il treated their people.  What is even more in common is the elder Kim IL Sung was a firm believer and follower of Joseph Stalin.  While Stalin wasn't an "isolationist" like Kim Il Sung, and later Kim Jong Il, much of what he did is what the far left in this country want us to do.  Take from the "rich" and give to the "poor".  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 

Those words in politics of today have been transformed into "wealth distribution" and "fair share".

 

Regarding "intervention" and how it affects us, what is going to happen if the angry mullahs in Iran actually get their hands on a nuclear weapon?  What would really happen if Iran is allowed to stop/attack/board/confiscate ships traveling through the Straits of Hormuz?  That is very much related not only to us, but the rest of the world.

 

What about Egypt and the Suez canal?  Do we let radicals take control of it?  I personally have been through the Suez Canal on more than one occasion as well as traveled to/from the Persian Gulf region by ship and aircraft several times.  The importance of "policing" the area is vital not only to us, but the rest of the world.

 

The idea of "letting other countries handle their problems" is ludicrous.  What happens in other parts of the world does in fact affect us here at home.

 

To get back on topic, I want a President that will be strong when it comes to foreign policy and be pro-military.  I also want a President that will be tough on immigration, and take measures to actually close our borders.

 

I want a President that will take measures to make business in this country profitable and desirable for large companies.

 

I want a President that will let me keep more of the money that I earn (cut taxes).

 

I want a President that will cut/eliminate useless government agencies and programs (Department of Education is the first one that comes to mind).

 

The bottom line is we need a strong and actual LEADER in office.  We need someone with actual EXPERIENCE being a leader, not a "community organizer".

FBT you asked about many regimes and how we should handle like situations. Here's how i see it and the view point I look for in politicians, you have three types of foreign conflicts regional conflicts, pretty much the entire Middle East and Africa different tribes and clans clashing and doing bad stuff to each other, we should stay out of it always. Then you have indirect threats Russia expanding as you called it, more concerning flying bombers off our shores, china building islands in international waters these are things we can't ignore and do not ignore. These actions are handled through diplomacy and building a strong military force ( I'm all for having the biggest military force peace through strength). But just like the Cuban missile crisis these conflicts are handled without military action it's when a threat reaches the third level we must act. Direct threats, such as the times of WWII or even responding to 9/11 ( but we bombed the wrong country ?) and when we respond it should be with the full force of our military without hesitation for the world to see the utter destructions we unleash and then we should leave, not occupy and rebuild for decades leave their civilization in ashes and let history note the end of their people in response to a direct threat to us.


However we tend to jump right in and play the middle man in the first level of threats to avoid dealing with the third level. That's what non-intervention as I see it is. We respond with war declared by congress to direct threats and when we respond civilizations are left in ruin.

Quote: But just like the Cuban missile crisis these conflicts are handled without military action it's when a threat reaches the third level we must act. 

 

Perhaps you should read some more on that one.

Former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee entered the Democrat Race for President:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lincoln-chaf...1433349221

Quote:Former Republican Independent Senator and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee entered the Democrat Race for President:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/lincoln-chaf...1433349221

 

FTFY

Quote:FTFY

 

It's easier to keep track what Lincoln Chafee wasn't than what he was.

 

In any event,  I'm glad to see him enter the Democrat Race and hope many more enter the Dem. Race.   The more Hilliary is challenged,  the better.  

Wow people still think invading Iraq was justifiable? 

 

 

Quote: 

To get back on topic, I want a President that will be strong when it comes to foreign policy and be pro-military.  I also want a President that will be tough on immigration, and take measures to actually close our borders.

 

 

I want a President that will cut/eliminate useless government agencies and programs (Department of Education is the first one that comes to mind).

 

 

 

Yes lets keep throwing away trillions invading countries for oil and cut education. Priorities.