Originally Posted by Copperfield

To be fair, "they" (as in the citizens of most Arab countries) don't own the oil. The oligarchs who control most aspects of their lives do. They (the rulers) in turn sell the oil and keep most of the money for themselves. Many don't own their own homes either or their land.

As far as "gunning for number 1" goes you have not defined what "number 1" means. Number 1 in what? Fat people? Not exactly something to gun for.

And sure, some of them have been blowing up Americans for years (almost always uninvited Americans hanging out in their neighborhoods) just like we have been blowing up Arabs for years (almost always Arabs hanging out in their own neighborhoods). If we really want to stretch things out, good, hard working, honest white folk and Arabs have been killing each other regularly since The Crusades (and occasionally going back even more). The question is of course, do you wish to continue this killing indefinitely? Is it worth it to you to continue, satisfying a need for vengeance for some slight, perceived or otherwise? Hey maybe it is to you, and that's fine. If it is though, shouldn't you at least consider getting a little bloody yourself?

Me? I have no emotional stake in that region and what goes on there. Certainly not enough to see the need for soldiers there. As far as killing Arabs for the purpose of revenge goes, I'm over it. Sometime you just have to know how and when to walk away.

To save yourself the words, the generic construct of armed combat is "everyone has killed or been killed by everyone else at sometime in history." This means nothing of course, but it is pretty accurate. So far, we've only learned to avoid fights involving nuclear weapons. I guess you can call that a start ... or maybe not. While we've avoided the nukes, we've been working overtime with just about everyting else in the arsenal.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It seems to have become a path for some to get out of poverty or an alternative to college. I don't entirely disagree with it; many countries have mandatory service for all men of a certain age. The military is almost certain to shrink eventually. Drones and special forces do much of our fighting for us. The military just needs to figure out how many grunts it needs at any given time to fight a real war should one crop up. My step-father is a retired Colonel. We have discussed it before and he agrees that it isn't that difficult to do. There is too much politics centered around the military.

Reducing the force to SpecOps and cadre seems to be a good way to say, "we'll defned ourselves, but we're not interested in conquering anyone." Now, all you need to do is to sell that to the politicians.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Woodward was on the newshour tonight; I caught him saying that if the country is stalemated in his second term, it will be Obama's fault. What a bunch of hogwash. He can only move forward with a democratic congress, and even then under severe limits. Saying it is up to him to work with congress, is the same as saying he should give in to them, because that is what they demand. He should not give in to them. That is not compromise; that is surrender. That is not leadership.

It is unreasonable to expect ducks not to quack. There is no reason to assume that the same people in congress now, would behave any differently than they have before. Obama needs a democratic congress, or no-one should expect him to accomplish anything whatsoever...

I don't agree with this. In lieu of the ability to actually do things, the best option is is to not do things your opponents want done. Obama can run the entire governement on recess appointment if necessary, and the fact he has to do it should be news all the time. He can issue executive orders, and dare the obstructioist Congress to stop him. He can also denounce every boneheaded attempt they make to do anything. He has some tools.

That said, the way will be extremely tough. There should be no opportunity missed to let them know, in public and private, that they are setting the stage for the same in reverse, if they are successful at blocking everything again. They have goals too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Reducing the force to SpecOps and cadre seems to be a good way to say, "we'll defned ourselves, but we're not interested in conquering anyone." Now, all you need to do is to sell that to the politicians.

That sounds right at first read, but are SpecOps people really defensive forces? Are they not more often strike forces or spotters? If we had a Lake Woebegon army where everyone was special, what would the mission be?

Seems to me we're moving towards a drone assassin military, where you clobber people half a world away with very expensive missiles, then go home to have supper with one's family.

Originally Posted by B Butler

That sounds right at first read, but are SpecOps people really defensive forces? Are they not more often strike forces or spotters? If we had a Lake Woebegon army where everyone was special, what would the mission be?

Seems to me we're moving towards a drone assassin military, where you clobber people half a world away with very expensive missiles, then go home to have supper with one's family.

SpecOps are very light forces, and tend to used for intelligence gathering (and some nasty stuff too ... that's hard to put aside). As a defense force, they are capable of many things, including disrupting terrorist training facilities. Remember, they chased OBL into Tora Bora. It wasn't the infantry.

By maintaining a substantial SpecOps capability (about 50,000 would be a rough guess), the professionals in all branches would have a place to be active, but a force that size can't invade anyone. The remaining force would be the force the Consitution calls-on: the Navy and the Navy's army, the Marines. We'll need a cadre Army and combat Air Force. Logistics will have to be maintained as well. The total force could be less than 500,000, and do it without contractors.

The brass won't like it, but then, they wouldn't, would they.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Gosh... it really shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what it means.

I didn't ask you for my interpretation of what it means. I asked for yours, since... You know... You brought it up.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

At what point did NYC, American planes flying over American air space become part of their neighborhood. The question is, do they wish to continue their killing and their support of killing indefinitely?

Oh I don't know. It was some time after American planes started flying over their neighborhoods. Right or wrong, if you make war on others, you should probably expect them to make war on you. That's really just a common sense thing.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I have an emotional stake in this region and I can both understand and justify the reason why we have soldiers over there right now.

That's great! How come you aren't out there killing Arabs then? Surely some rag head has offended you personally on some level.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

To save yourself the words, the generic construct of armed combat is "everyone has killed or been killed by everyone else at sometime in history." This means nothing of course, but it is pretty accurate. So far, we've only learned to avoid fights involving nuclear weapons. I guess you can call that a start ... or maybe not. While we've avoided the nukes, we've been working overtime with just about everyting else in the arsenal.

As I said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing or even war (at their most basic concepts). I simply think that if you intend on killing A) It should be for a good reason. B) You should be willing to be the killer yourself.

For me, maintenance of the fading empire is not a good reason and as a result of this, I am not interested in being a killer for it. As I would not be interested in being a killer for it, I am also not asking for others to be the killers in my stead.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't agree with this. In lieu of the ability to actually do things, the best option is is to not do things your opponents want done. Obama can run the entire governement on recess appointment if necessary, and the fact he has to do it should be news all the time. He can issue executive orders, and dare the obstructioist Congress to stop him. He can also denounce every boneheaded attempt they make to do anything. He has some tools.

Maybe some, yes; but if he has them, he has not used them enough so far, to judge by the results (like 8% unemployment, a 1-3% lead over a dunce candidate, etc.). Denunciation means nothing. He can't order spending or taxes, IIRC, which are what are most needed. Mostly what he can do is screw around with foreign policy, maybe get us into trouble or violate some of our rights. Republicans won't object to that.

That said, the way will be extremely tough. There should be no opportunity missed to let them know, in public and private, that they are setting the stage for the same in reverse, if they are successful at blocking everything again. They have goals too.

The point is, they need to be thrown out of office this November so they can't do that. That is the only issue. We should miss no opportunity the next 50 days to let people know that.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I didn't ask you for my interpretation of what it means. I asked for yours, since... You know... You brought it up.

I didn't ask you for mine either but that didn't stop you from misinterpreting it and applying a wrong meaning and using it in a negative way.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh I don't know. It was some time after American planes started flying over their neighborhoods. Right or wrong, if you make war on others, you should probably expect them to make war on you. That's really just a common sense thing.

American planes didn't fly over Libya until Kadafi started supporting the murder of US citizens traveling abroad and later started killing his own citizens in large numbers to preserve his power. If you make war on others, you should expect them to make war on you sounds right to me. If you make war on the US, you should expect the US to make war on you sounds right to me as well. Does that sound right to you as well?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

That's great! How come you aren't out there killing Arabs then? Surely some rag head has offended you personally on some level.

The US military doesn't need me to kill foriegn rag heads, it's quite capable of killing them on their own. As far as the home front, the local rag heads haven't done anything that's worth or has required me to get my hands bloody. Rag head rhetoric doesn't offend me anymore than your rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

As I said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing or even war (at their most basic concepts). I simply think that if you intend on killing A) It should be for a good reason. B) You should be willing to be the killer yourself.

For me, maintenance of the fading empire is not a good reason and as a result of this, I am not interested in being a killer for it. As I would not be interested in being a killer for it, I am also not asking for others to be the killers in my stead.

For me, I'm not liberal enough to associate America with the term empire or imperialism. We don't own and directly control enough of the world to even be able to relate to that SHIT.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

For me, I'm not liberal enough to associate America with the term empire or imperialism. We don't own and directly control enough of the world to even be able to relate to that SHIT.

Here, let me help you.

And

throwing the Bill of Rights under the bus?

Sounds like imperial like stuff to me. Though I do agree with you. The US is not an empire per se. Rather, it's a banana republic hybridized with empire. For, example, if we get cocky with China, they can just dump all those US bonds they have and trash our economy. No bombs needed, just keystrokes. It's little wonder they're hoarding gold.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

SpecOps are very light forces, and tend to used for intelligence gathering (and some nasty stuff too ... that's hard to put aside). As a defense force, they are capable of many things, including disrupting terrorist training facilities. Remember, they chased OBL into Tora Bora. It wasn't the infantry.

By maintaining a substantial SpecOps capability (about 50,000 would be a rough guess), the professionals in all branches would have a place to be active, but a force that size can't invade anyone. The remaining force would be the force the Constitution calls-on: the Navy and the Navy's army, the Marines. We'll need a cadre Army and combat Air Force. Logistics will have to be maintained as well. The total force could be less than 500,000, and do it without contractors.

The brass won't like it, but then, they wouldn't, would they.

I guess the question is what capabilities one wants, what sort of missions have to be performed. The forces and force sizes are quite different.

One Cold War mission was to deter aggression by other major powers, primarily in Europe. We are still doing this in Korea. To some degree, one can buy superiority. If one has the best tanks in the world, you don't need as many of them. Still, defensive deterrence takes numbers. Seal teams might have a dozen members and there might be a dozen teams? They are highly trained, in god awful shape, can do diverse jobs, but they aren't going to spread themselves over hundreds of miles of front and stop opposition hoard attacks. For that, you want traditional infantry, armor, artillery, air support... combined arms and not a small amount of it.

While deterrence is defensive, the same sort of combined arms force is good on the offensive. If somebody invades Kuwait, combined arms can kick em out. If someone decides Saddam Hussain has to go, combined arms can get rid of the opposition combined arms. After years of training to stop the Soviet Union from pouring into Europe, we focused a lot on overt war and are good at it.

We are also much much better than most anyone else at deploying far from home. We've got aircraft carriers groups and amphibious groups. We've got heavy transports. It's one thing to say we can fight a major war, but it's a big deal to be able to fight it on short notice anywhere in the world. A while ago a small island government in the Pacific started behaving very badly. Australia and a few other countries in the region were willing to provide the troops to stabilize the situation. That's fine, and the US didn't have to put people in harms way, but without US transport capability it couldn't have happened.

Then there is counterinsurgency and nation building. It was one thing to wipe out Iraq's regular army, another to stabilize the country once we took it. Different training. Technology helps less. You need boots on the ground. The force required is determined by the population of the country one is trying to occupy. One needs a significant fraction of the population one is trying to control. There is also the threat of quagmire. If one has to occupy a country, odds are said country has a tradition of bad autocratic government. There will be a culture of oppression, corruption and violence, not of democracy and human rights. They won't have the values to make democracy work cleanly the first time around. They will have the values necessary to make occupying their country expensive in dollars, iron and blood.

Stabilizing failed states might be essentially the same mission. Populations are increasing while the weather is getting worse. One ends up shipping grain to refugee camps full of women and children, but to gather firewood to cook the stuff the women have to run a line of waiting rapists. Let it happen? At the moment the US has no stomach for such missions. We were too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to even consider additional missions. Yet, that's quite possibly the next war.

To maintain these capabilities, we are spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined. At that, we can attempt to stabilize maybe a single country which will not thank us and will do their best to send back our soldiers in boxes.

More missions? Prevent terrorists from building training camps? Again, we might be able to prevent them from building camps in one country at a time, but there are lots of countries. Put troops near the oil? Spread democratic values? Prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Maybe we can do these things one country at a time, risking quagmire every time we do, with no one saying thank you.

Yet would the voters tolerate a significant stand down? The Republicans want to throw more money at the military, and waving the flag does seem to get them votes. If we are going to try to harness the budget, a true reevaluation of what we want to be able to do seems required.

I don't see anyone truly talking about a major downsizing of the military.

Originally Posted by Justin Bieber

I close my eyes, and I can see a better day

If you close your eyes, you can't see reality.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You missed my earlier post where I pointed out that this is where Romney went off the deep end. He actually believed the WSJ meme that the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes are the 47% Dem base. Numb skull!

At least 1/2 of those not paying any federal income taxes bleed GOP red including old white retirees on Social Security and Medicare, the core of his base. I don't think they're going to like being called moochers.

If you're having a hard time figuring this out picture going over to the house of the Director of the Humane Farming Association and finding that veal is on the menu, fresh because you all are going to kill and butcher the calf right there. Got it?

But a single taxpayer with no dependents earning $11,300 or more a year actually does pay federal income tax; and with a $7.25-an-hour minimum wage, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year comes out to $14,500.

Strangely, I have heard no pundit - from the left, or the right, or even the middle - point this out.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, I think it might be silly to call all soldiers mercenaries. Just as silly as ignoring the fact we do actually use mercenaries who are more than happy to set aside moral questions or loyalty to country.

Most of the enlisted people I've known tended to be fairly idealistic about their service, at least going in. Ten years later, they're not so idealistic about America's influence on the world and they don't think non-interventionism is so crazy.

The sad part, to me, is how quickly you jump to threats and fantasies of violence when you feel offended by someone's words.

Little to disagree with here, at least to some degree.

That includes my 'jumping.' Obviously an ancient 'button' was pushed that surprised even me. I'll try to cool it from here.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If grammar and spelling are your criteria for "intelligent and thoughtful," playdude fails in those areas also.

If 99.8% of my posts on the forum were also snarky one-liners, I'm sure my grammar and spelling would surpass your own; I pretty sure my snark would also be a lot more entertainng.

Remember, I'm the one having to instruct you on proper

Let's have a shout out for Romney's fallout!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-p-candidates/

Senate Forecast: What Has Gone Wrong for G.O.P. Candidates?
By NATE SILVER

The trend in the presidential race has been difficult to discern lately. President Obama has very probably gained ground since the conventions, but it’s hard to say exactly how much, and how quickly his bounce is eroding.

There are no such ambiguities in the race for control of the Senate, however. Polls show key races shifting decisively toward the Democrats, with the Republican position deteriorating almost by the day.

Since we published our initial Senate forecast on Tuesday, Republicans have seen an additional decline in their standing in two major races.

Two polls of Virginia published on Wednesday gave the Democrat, the former Gov. Tim Kaine, leads of 4 and 7 percentage points over the Republican, the former Senator George Allen. The FiveThirtyEight forecast model now gives Mr. Kaine roughly a 75 percent chance of winning the seat on the strength of the new polls, up from about 60 percent in Tuesday’s forecast.

The other problematic state for Republicans is Wisconsin, where their candidate, the former Gov. Tommy Thompson, had once appeared to hold the advantage.

Mr. Thompson’s Democratic opponent, Representative Tammy Baldwin, had published an internal poll earlier this week showing her pulling into the lead. The FiveThirtyEight Senate and presidential forecasts do not use internal polls released directly by the campaigns, as they typically exaggerate their candidate’s standing.

However, in this case, public polls have now confirmed that the race seems to have shifted. A poll by The New York Times, CBS News and Quinnipiac University showed Mrs. Baldwin having drawn into a tie with Mr. Thompson, after trailing him by 6 percentage points last month.

A Marquette University poll, also published on Wednesday, showed a much sharper reversal, with Mrs. Baldwin going from a 9-point deficit to a 9-point lead. The Marquette poll appears to be a bit of an outlier — it also had Mr. Obama leading in the presidential race in [b]Wisconsin[/b[ by a 14-point margin, a somewhat implausible figure. Nonetheless, the model now has Mrs. Baldwin as the slight favorite, with about a 60 percent chance of winning.

It would be only a modest exaggeration to say that it’s been hard to find any strong Senate polls for Republicans in the past two or three weeks. Wednesday also brought bad news for Republicans in Massachusetts, where a fourth consecutive poll showed the Democrat Elizabeth Warren ahead of Senator Scott Brown; in Connecticut, where a poll gave the Democrat Chris Murphy a slight advantage over their candidate, Linda McMahon; and in Florida, where a Fox News poll gave the Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson a 14-point lead.

One exception has been in Maine, where two new polls on Wednesday showed a deterioration in the standing of the independent Angus King, who would probably caucus with the Democrats, at the expense of both the Republican, Secretary of State Charles Summers, and the Democrat, State Senator Cynthia Dill. The model now gives Mr. King an 84 percent chance of winning, Mr. Summers 11 percent, and Mrs. Dill 5 percent.

But this is small compensation for the decline over the past two weeks of the Republicans’ position in Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio, all of which have broken sharply to the Democrats.

The Democrats’ chances of controlling the Senate have increased to 79 percent in the forecast, up from 70 percent on Tuesday.

Had we run the model a month ago, based on polls through Aug. 19, the Democrats’ chances of maintaining Senate control would have been listed at just 39 percent....

Originally Posted by Copperfield

As I said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing or even war (at their most basic concepts). I simply think that if you intend on killing A) It should be for a good reason. B) You should be willing to be the killer yourself.

For me, maintenance of the fading empire is not a good reason and as a result of this, I am not interested in being a killer for it. As I would not be interested in being a killer for it, I am also not asking for others to be the killers in my stead.

Fair enough. I went. I wouldn't go again, unless the reason was a helluva lot better than the tripe we use as excuses today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe some, yes; but if he has them, he has not used them enough so far, to judge by the results (like 8% unemployment, a 1-3% lead over a dunce candidate, etc.). Denunciation means nothing. He can't order spending or taxes, IIRC, which are what are most needed. Mostly what he can do is screw around with foreign policy, maybe get us into trouble or violate some of our rights. Republicans won't object to that.

The point is, they need to be thrown out of office this November so they can't do that. That is the only issue. We should miss no opportunity the next 50 days to let people know that.

Obama fails the respect test, because he's aloof and diffident. He can either roll up his sleaves and get in the game, or contunue being a rug. Assuming he wins, it's his choice.

If it was me in his stead, I would be seling the party as a vehicle of change. "I can't do it alone; elect more Democrats.", may be a risky pitch, but that's why he should make it ... every day ... in every venue. He needs to set the narrative, rather than being a 2-dimensional character in the GOP's tale-of-the-day. Here's a simple miss: Eric Cantor made a speech on Labor Day, and praised the hard working enterpeneurs and job creators without even mentioning the workng stiffs the day is intended to honor. He should have been chopped-off ta the knees by a verbal barrage from the White House, followed by more from every self respecting Democrat. Instead: silence.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Here, let me help you.

And

throwing the Bill of Rights under the bus?

Sounds like imperial like stuff to me. Though I do agree with you. The US is not an empire per se. Rather, it's a banana republic hybridized with empire. For, example, if we get cocky with China, they can just dump all those US bonds they have and trash our economy. No bombs needed, just keystrokes. It's little wonder they're hoarding gold.

If China were to that then all we'd need is an act of congress to dump trade agreements with China which would trash their economy, create a natural split between the wanna be capitalists and the communists and rebuild our economy.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I guess the question is what capabilities one wants, what sort of missions have to be performed. The forces and force sizes are quite different.

One Cold War mission was to deter aggression by other major powers, primarily in Europe. We are still doing this in Korea. To some degree, one can buy superiority. If one has the best tanks in the world, you don't need as many of them. Still, defensive deterrence takes numbers. Seal teams might have a dozen members and there might be a dozen teams? They are highly trained, in god awful shape, can do diverse jobs, but they aren't going to spread themselves over hundreds of miles of front and stop opposition hoard attacks. For that, you want traditional infantry, armor, artillery, air support... combined arms and not a small amount of it.

We CAN do a lot of things. The question we need to ask is SHOULD we do them?

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

While deterrence is defensive, the same sort of combined arms force is good on the offensive. If somebody invades Kuwait, combined arms can kick em out. If someone decides Saddam Hussain has to go, combined arms can get rid of the opposition combined arms. After years of training to stop the Soviet Union from pouring into Europe, we focused a lot on overt war and are good at it.

I think the entire cop-of-the-world role is self defeating. We go in at our expense to fix messes (often making additinal one in the process), but the benefits go to others who were more constrained. We've also trained the world that they can leave it to us, because ... well, just because.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

We are also much much better than most anyone else at deploying far from home. We've got aircraft carriers groups and amphibious groups. We've got heavy transports. It's one thing to say we can fight a major war, but it's a big deal to be able to fight it on short notice anywhere in the world. A while ago a small island government in the Pacific started behaving very badly. Australia and a few other countries in the region were willing to provide the troops to stabilize the situation. That's fine, and the US didn't have to put people in harms way, but without US transport capability it couldn't have happened.

Yes, we bought the toys, so we're best at dong just about everything. This seems to imply that it's our job. Should it be? There are interventions that need to happen, but they should be undertaken by a much wider range of interests than the US of A.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

Then there is counterinsurgency and nation building. It was one thing to wipe out Iraq's regular army, another to stabilize the country once we took it. Different training. Technology helps less. You need boots on the ground. The force required is determined by the population of the country one is trying to occupy. One needs a significant fraction of the population one is trying to control. There is also the threat of quagmire. If one has to occupy a country, odds are said country has a tradition of bad autocratic government. There will be a culture of oppression, corruption and violence, not of democracy and human rights. They won't have the values to make democracy work cleanly the first time around. They will have the values necessary to make occupying their country expensive in dollars, iron and blood.

Iraq is the best example of bad policy I can conceive. We went there because we could. Our pretense was to find WMDs (BTW, Republicans believe we actually found them, by a ratio of 3 to 1). This was a case of commercial empirialism gone awry. I'm not sure that our failure to steal the place blind isn't the best result of the entire debaucle, but it's in the running.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

Stabilizing failed states might be essentially the same mission. Populations are increasing while the weather is getting worse. One ends up shipping grain to refugee camps full of women and children, but to gather firewood to cook the stuff the women have to run a line of waiting rapists. Let it happen? At the moment the US has no stomach for such missions. We were too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to even consider additional missions. Yet, that's quite possibly the next war.

Here's a question we seem to pretend isn't really a question: is a failed state a reason to intervene, and, the corollary, is the result of intervention consistently good enough to justify it in any case? I don't think we can argue that our presense is a net positive. Afghanistan will be much the same after we leave. Should we waste lives and treasure on foreign soil to zero (or minus) net effect?

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

To maintain these capabilities, we are spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined. At that, we can attempt to stabilize maybe a single country which will not thank us and will do their best to send back our soldiers in boxes.

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

More missions? Prevent terrorists from building training camps? Again, we might be able to prevent them from building camps in one country at a time, but there are lots of countries. Put troops near the oil? Spread democratic values? Prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Maybe we can do these things one country at a time, risking quagmire every time we do, with no one saying thank you.

Disrupting tragedy in the making may do some good, and it's less costly in lives and treasure. In some cases, the return on the effort is notably positive ... even prior to engaging. That said, the same issues apply to small engagements as large ones.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

Yet would the voters tolerate a significant stand down? The Republicans want to throw more money at the military, and waving the flag does seem to get them votes. If we are going to try to harness the budget, a true reevaluation of what we want to be able to do seems required.

I don't see anyone truly talking about a major downsizing of the military.

An addict is always the last one to think he has a problem.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If 99.8% of my posts on the forum were also snarky one-liners, I'm sure my grammar and spelling would surpass your own; I pretty sure my snark would also be a lot more entertainng.

Remember, I'm the one having to instruct you on proper

I dunno, she's very intelligent and well spoken and she appears to be loaded with natural talents, abilities and sound moral virtues as well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We CAN do a lot of things. The question we need to ask is SHOULD we do them?

I wouldn't mind if you tried to answer the above question. I gave you a laundry list of possible missions. What capability do we actually need?

I'd be tempted to pull out pretty much entirely from Europe and South Korea. The only reason to keep a few European bases would be to support possible actions in the Middle East and North Africa.

Can we afford to drop the capability of fighting one medium small war anywhere in the world? I'm not sure. Still, we shouldn't have a doctrine of being continuously engaged in one medium small war at all times. For quite a while any infantry unit, regular or reserve, was in one of three states: deployed, recovering from deployment, or working up towards deployment.

As to failed states, I would revert to the Powell Doctrine. If one is going to go in, bring enough force to do the job cleanly and have an exit strategy. Yet, how does one really heal a failed state?

Anyone else want to take a shot at it?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I dunno, she's very intelligent and well spoken and she appears to be loaded with natural talents, abilities and sound moral virtues as well.

Have you asked her about getting a room?

If she says no but with a , keep at it. If, however, she gives you a , fergitaboutit.

Those crazy liberal posters over at Fox News reporting out today -

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ground-states/

Obama has edge over Romney in three battleground states


President Barack Obama has the edge over Republican Mitt Romney in three potentially decisive states in the presidential election.

Obama tops Romney by seven percentage points among likely voters in both Ohio (49-42 percent) and Virginia (50-43 percent). In Florida, the president holds a five-point edge (49-44 percent).

Big O is up by 7, 7 and 5 but Fox calls it an "edge"???

I guess that's those Fox liberals trying to be fair and balance again.