Fun fact about US military spending

[TobiasFunke]

When you say "college", you actually mean Hillsdale College right Juan?

Edited May 26, 2015 by TobiasFunke

[InsideThePark]

I go by my experience, especially in having known a lot of friends on the left and having been left for a few years in college.

So when you were a liberal, you were happy about Vietnam being a failure? And you think it would have "delighted you to no end" to see Iraq destabilized? That pretty much proves you can't be on either side without being a total wingnut.

[HaloMagic]

Juan is like if wopphil was good at trolling.

[Stradling]

Juan is Bakunin

[wopphil]

Juan is like if wopphil was good at trolling.

Thank you?

[juansavage1]

Everybody wants their ideology to prevail. That's why people vote. When the ideology is backed by military aggression, you fight back with a military. The Nazis and the Soviets used military force so we had to have a strong military to oppose them. This is pretty basic stuff, people.

 

I won't use anecdotal evidence like my conversations with people, many of whom delight in reminding people how Vietnam was a "failure." I will note that people on the left tend to not support America's anti-communist efforts and are willing to cut dictators like Castro slack while opposing other, more benign, dictatorships. Also, it is a fact that when North Vietnam violated the treaty they signed and invaded South Vietnam, it was the left that abandoned them, despite the protests of President Ford.

 

Right now, I don't see a lot of angst about Isis taking over Iraq, except as it helps in bashing Bush, even though we could have prevented it and still have a chance to do so.

 

People who think the US is a force for evil want a smaller military, generally, although other people just might want more efficiency.

[Stradling]

I'm guessing 99% want more effeciency.

[RallyMo]

I won't use anecdotal evidence like my conversations with people, many of whom delight in reminding people how Vietnam was a "failure."

"Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby pledge not to do what I am about to do in this very sentence."

Nice work.

[juansavage1]

The example I used was the American abandonment of South Vietnam. Efficiency is one thing. Thinking that we should spend about as much as another just to be fair is another.

[nate]

I am just shocked that the people he talks to have opinions.  That is so rare these days.

 

I had a conversation with a homeless man who really liked beer and swore that Obama shot JFK.

[RallyMo]

The example I used was the American abandonment of South Vietnam. Efficiency is one thing. Thinking that we should spend about as much as another just to be fair is another.

I'm fairly certain that in this post you've managed to create a previously unstated position expressly so that you can oppose it.

You're a magician.

[Tank]

many of the libs here flip out over things fox news does, the one conservative news organization that's out there. juan savage is getting treated the same way.

 

this is fun to watch.

[HaloMagic]

LOL @ the one conservative news organization out there.

Edited May 27, 2015 by HaloMagic

[Crampknees]

Juan Savage stole my porno name. 

[mulwin444]

"more benign dictators"

 

Like the ones that, instead of torturing their dissidents, they tickle them with feathers.

[Tank]

"more benign dictators"

 

Like the ones that, instead of torturing their dissidents, they tickle them with feathers.

 

sounds like the basis for a fun monty python skit.

[juansavage1]

I'll answer the question above since it's a real question and not an insult, as I'm used to (nobody here seriously refuted my main claim that the size of the military correlates with your view of the US and its enemies and that certain segments of the population didn't mind that much to see the US fail at some of its overseas efforts).

 

Anyways,

 

Vladdy, you asked why it's OK for the US to start wars. I see the battles against fascism and communism, the two examples I used, as defensive, mostly, when it was a shooting war. By defensive, I don't mean that they attacked the US, but that the Soviets and Chinese were using its power to encourage a certain outcome in a civil war. I also see those two ideologies as evil and worth fighting.

 

Let me ask you: Do you think the US should have used its influence to encourage South Africa from continuing apartheid? If you do, then you're in favor of influencing other countries.

 

The second question on Isis. It may be true that Saddam Hussein and his sons would have prevented ISIS. It's also true that had Obama signed an agreement with the Iraqi government, we could have prevented ISIS.

 

The only reason I brought up ISIS and Vietnam is to explain why people disagree on how big the US military should be. Some people see the US as a negative influence in the world and some see it as a positive one.

[HaloMagic]

Nobody seriously refuted your "main claim that the size of the military correlates with your view of the US and its enemies and that certain segments of the population didn't mind that much to see the US fail at some of its overseas efforts" because it's true. Certain segments of the population didn't mine much. Just like certain segment don't mind much at the hundreds of thousands of innocents the US has killed in the course of those overseas efforts.

Certain segments =/= liberal or conservative. That point has been seriously refuted by many self-proclaimed liberals here using their own opinions as the refutation. "Liberals" don't hate America. Your assertion that they all think in similar fashion is amusing, though.

Reminds me of why I enjoyed Fox News.

[mtangelsfan]

I get the feeling you are just trolling but whatever.

 

For the first part of your post, why is it OK in your mind when the USA backs its ideology by force and starts wars? Why is it bad for other countries to do the same?

 

For the second part, we could have prevented ISIS from taking over Iraq if we minded our own damn business and didn't destroy their country in the first place. Also, Iran would have a lot less dominance in the region than they do now.

 

I don't think the reason was good enough to get involved in Iraq but can we not pretend that everything was good there until we showed up?

 

Seriously, Saddam was a sadist, who along with his sons enjoyed all the trappings of corruption while also enjoying a good torture and rape or two.

 

He also invaded Kuwait and started that war with Iran.

[nate]

None of which should matter to us.

[mtangelsfan]

None of which should matter to us.

 

perhaps.

 

Although it might matter to his victims.  I doubt you sit by and let some lady get attacked simply because it isn't your business.

[Adam]

Bakunin is Bak!

[nate]

perhaps.

 

Although it might matter to his victims.  I doubt you sit by and let some lady get attacked simply because it isn't your business.

 

There are for worse genocides happening that we are completely ignoring.  Don't act like him killing people had anything to do it.  It was all about oil and $.

[mtangelsfan]

you aren't really understanding my point at all.  You're so entrenched in your position that you can only see others as ensconced in theirs.

 

I didn't argue it was right to go there.  My point is that if there could be a truly benevolent way of helping another country without all the nation building, oil coveting and horrendous rebuilding budgets for the U.S. companies that do that work it might be worth it.  

 

The U.S. has proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted while meddling in foreign affairs but that doesn't mean it should never be attempted by anyone.

[mtangelsfan]

ok