Originally posted by Lord LucienSounds like me. I don't get a lot of sleep because of my condition, I only get homework done in hyperactive mode throughout night. Don't know why, darkness and cool air stimulate me.
Obama's just rehearsing for his role in the new Tiger Woods film.Though I do like how many times he "will not rest". He must be so f*cking sleepy by now.
Okay, so, some updates:
-Looks like the congressional vote, when it happens, won't go well for Obama's strike plans
-Russia has proposed a handover of Syria's chemical arms to the international community, but refuses to include any threat of force in the terms in the event of non-compliance by Syria
-Syria has accepted Russia's terms, but asserts that it has nothing to do with the American threat of force
I want to develop my thoughts and political ideas so I guess this is the best place to put them (regarding Syria).
I don't think we should be worrying about Syria at all. The most involved I think the US should get is offering permanent refuge to Syrians who want to flee.
Military action should not be undertaken. We should be looking for ways to cut-back our foreign military policing, not increase them.
DDD, what kind of timetable would you want to see for a scaling back of interventionist policies and overseas military presence?
Are you of a mind with Ron Paul, who believes we should remove troops from all foreign bases as soon as logistically possible, or would you want to see a more gradual change of posture?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
DDD, what kind of timetable would you want to see for a scaling back of interventionist policies and overseas military presence?
3 years because that would be in time for re-election. 😄
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you of a mind with Ron Paul, who believes we should remove troops from all foreign bases as soon as logistically possible, or would you want to see a more gradual change of posture?
Similar to but not the same as Paul. Some of those bases are collaborative efforts where our military are also trained (partnerships such as with Israel...because they have some pretty awesome programs and knowledge to share). That type of stuff would not necessarily need to change. But foreign occupations and bases that serve no necessary function (meaning, those things could be completed domestically) should be dismantled. A few bases in Japan come to mind.
DDM: I'm sort of interested, what type of foreign bases are you in favor of? Obviously, ones in places like Japan or Germany, so long as they aren't actively used for training or joint military operations, could probably be closed. But like, bases in the 'stans, or Jordan, or etc... are only there because they serve America's ability to intervene in that region. If America's foreign policy demphasized intervention, what is the use of any of their foreign bases?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Interesting. How do you feel about the military presence in South Korea?
It shouldn't be there.
Originally posted by Oliver North
DDM: I'm sort of interested, what type of foreign bases are you in favor of? Obviously, ones in places like Japan or Germany, so long as they aren't actively used for training or joint military operations, could probably be closed. But like, bases in the 'stans, or Jordan, or etc... are only there because they serve America's ability to intervene in that region. If America's foreign policy demphasized intervention, what is the use of any of their foreign bases?
Exactly. Military Interventionism is not my idea of good foreign policy. Providing foreign aid in the form of actual aid (and not money) is okay. But, obviously, I would prefer the people do it rather than the government. The government should provide a way for that to happen through diplomatic relations.
Basically, I'm for Humanitarian Interventionism but not Military. I also would not oppose human rights groups trying to intervene. My beef is when the governments do the military intervening.
Obviously, the US cannot afford to continue to spend all the money that they do on the military.
Also, it does not appear that I am alone in my approach:
http://reason.com/poll/2013/09/10/reason-rupe-september-2013-national-surv
"Nearly two-thirds, 63 percent, of Americans feel members of Congress are out of touch with their constituents when it comes to federal spending. Seventy-six percent of Americans believe the federal government spends too much money, 11 percent say it spends the right amount, and 7 percent say it spends too little."
"Poll: 64 Percent of Americans Say President Obama’s Handling of Foreign Policy Is Worse or the Same as President George W. Bush’s
74 percent of Americans say strikes on Syria would be “unwise” and half of Americans believe the D.C. establishment wants war more than the public"
"When it comes to launching U.S. military action across the globe, 47 percent of Americans say the “political establishment in Washington D.C.” is more likely to favor military action than they are. A majority of independents, 57 percent, say D.C. insiders are more likely to favor war than they are. In contrast, just 17 percent of Americans say the Beltway establishment is less likely to favor military action than they are, and 30 percent say the establishment favors war about the same amount as the public."
I won't pretend to have an in-depth knowledge of all the world's military bases but this website has a good start on it: