optometry is great!!! read this!

[KHE]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The military isn't protecting anybody?? Take away our armed forces and see how long it takes before you're speaking another language or praying to the east every afternoon. The idiotic policies of a US president should never be mistaken as a reason for diminishing the importance of a military capable of squashing any threat. You little ones are truly blind to what hell there exists outside of American borders....and the fact that there is no shortage of lunatics who would love to bring it all home to us. Wow, dude - epic cluelessness like I've never encountered, except when speaking with a liberal.

"

If we're going to have an army that's 40 times larger than the next top 8 nations combined (or is it 8 times larger than the next 40 nations combined?) then shouldn't we actually be protected from something? I don't get what we're being protected from.

The biggest enemy to America today tries to stuff bombs into their underpants and shoes. If the flaming wreckage of a 747 fell out of the sky over Los Angeles tomorrow (God forbid) and it was determined that it was brought down by some 23 year old disenfranchised idiot from Yemen with a bomb in his underpants, would any of us really be surprised? How does a one trillion dollar annual military budget protect us from that?

This notion that we're also going to speaking a different language if not for the military also seems to be a bit misguided. We're well on our way to speaking Spanish and I don't see the military protecting us from that. If it isn't Spanish then it will probably be Chinese and I don't see China mobilizing their army along the Mexican border or Canadian border getting ready to invade.

I'm all for having a big military but it's as if our military leaders are still trying protecting us from the "Ruskies." Is the Red Army really the biggest threat to America these days?

 

[ineed2stpsmurfn]

If we're going to have an army that's 40 times larger than the next top 8 nations combined (or is it 8 times larger than the next 40 nations combined?) then shouldn't we actually be protected from something? I don't get what we're being protected from.

The biggest enemy to America today tries to stuff bombs into their underpants and shoes. If the flaming wreckage of a 747 fell out of the sky over Los Angeles tomorrow (God forbid) and it was determined that it was brought down by some 23 year old disenfranchised idiot from Yemen with a bomb in his underpants, would any of us really be surprised? How does a one trillion dollar annual military budget protect us from that?

This notion that we're also going to speaking a different language if not for the military also seems to be a bit misguided. We're well on our way to speaking Spanish and I don't see the military protecting us from that. If it isn't Spanish then it will probably be Chinese and I don't see China mobilizing their army along the Mexican border or Canadian border getting ready to invade.

I'm all for having a big military but it's as if our military leaders are still trying protecting us from the "Ruskies." Is the Red Army really the biggest threat to America these days?

True, and if our budget stays the same as it was then (and now) we will go broke just like the russians did. This defense stuff will sink us i'm afraid.

 

[ineed2stpsmurfn]

....and we had a huge budget for defense before 2001. Lot's of good that did us.. :rollseyes:

 

[Jason K]

Seems like America forgot about this little thing called isolationism. I predict as long as the Australians don't stick their heads into every world conflict they will surpass America in their quality of life. Oh wait they already did....the minimum wage in Australia is $14 an hour while America its half of that. And oh yes, the Australian currency is stronger than the American currency. America's golden age is over. This country will be taken over by hordes of ignorant people because they reproduce faster. And they will set up more and more social programs until history repeats itself, see: Soviet Union.

The only thing America should be protecting itself is from the rampant reproduction of uneducated individuals. If any of you guys ever studied ecology or population dynamics there is this concept called fecundity. This means the ability to reproduce. Certain types of species of organisms reproduce like crazy because they value quantity over quality. And most of their offspring die before they reach adulthood. A similar thing goes on in humans. If you do not think this is true and somehow humans are immune to the rules of biology then you belong to the group of the high fecundity individuals.

Oh dear god - what, Shnurek? You think a $14 dollar minimum wage is a GOOD thing? You need to go back to undergrad and take some basic econ courses. If we instituted a $14 minimum wage in this country, we'd be screwed. It's another example of liberal policy aimed at keeping people from actually having to work for what they get. It had great intention when it was developed, but was then hijacked by those hoping to use it to get votes - just like all liberal policy.

The US dollar is weak because the White House has been printing sheets of $20s out by the hundreds of millions, making paper airplanes out of them, and sending them to China. The Australian dollar is stronger because they haven't borrowed and spent themselves into oblivion like our last two presidents.

As I said......very clearly.....you can't use the idiotic policies of a US president (or two) as a basis for claiming that the military is "not protecting anybody." I seem to recall a recent post by an absolutely clueless individual that stated just that.

As for your babbling on about sticking our heads where it doesn't belong? Yes, we do that and it is an example of what I already mentioned as "ldiotic policy."

I'd love to see the Shnurek / Dinkus White House.

"Ok, everyone, we're just gonna trim back on all the branches because we figure bullets are really expensive, and let's face it....the military is just for show. If we're really nice to everyone, they'll back down - all we need to do is continue the Apology Tour that Obama never finished. There's only a few countries out there that would love to take a dump on us, but we figure with all the guys in the midwest who own shotguns, and those crazy folks out in Western PA who can make cool explosives, we should be ok. When China lands on the shoreline, we'll just throw PF Chang's dishes and other Chinese-American fusion food at them to ward them off. Is everyone ok with that?"

So, liberals - outrageous wasteful defense spending does not provide us with an incentive to speak out against the importance of a strong military. The phrase "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater," comes to mind. Maybe pick up a copy of the WSJ so you can supplement that hot air that comes along with everything written in the NYT these days. Actually, what am I saying, liberals don't read news, they hear it from each other. Ok, you can all go back to quoting Joy Behar and Whoopi from the last episode of the View now.

 

[Shnurek]

True, and if our budget stays the same as it was then (and now) we will go broke just like the russians did. This defense stuff will sink us i'm afraid.

Exactly. And we will go broke also because this country is being taken over by reproductive rates of less productive individuals. People that go on to professional schools and go into higher education / spend long hours on their careers delay having children, usually. While uneducated people such as some people in my middle school already had 2 kids by the time they turned 15. Nobody that has gone to college that I know has a kid yet. While I know about 8 or 10 people that didn't go to college that have kids. I know it is anecdotal but there are studies out there that prove my point which I'll look up if people start countering me.

 

[Shnurek]

I'd rather have a chance of topic to random political debates than continue the insulting, trashy conversation in the previous few pages.

 

[Jason K]

If we're going to have an army that's 40 times larger than the next top 8 nations combined (or is it 8 times larger than the next 40 nations combined?) then shouldn't we actually be protected from something? I don't get what we're being protected from.

If you read what I stated, it was not a justification for bloated defense spending, which is crippling us financially. What I said was, that outrageous spending is no excuse to label our military as somehow unnecessary, which is precisely what was stated. History repeats itself - think about the US in the 1930s if our president had simply said, "Nah, Hitler's no biggie - just a crazy guy over there in Germany. He won't give us any trouble. And for the Japanese - those guys can't do anything to us." If you think that the only people out to get us are a few crazies in Yemen, you're way off, dude.

As for the national language thing - I wouldn't argue that it's unlikely we'll be speaking another language (maybe other than spanish) anytime soon, but that's precisely because our military is in place to prevent it. As a thought experiment, just remove the military from our budget. No army, no marines, no navy, no air force, nothing. Maybe we'd keep the coast guard just for good measure and because their color schemes are pretty cool-looking. Think how long it would be before someone takes a shot at us. Who would it be? .....Who cares? How long would it take?

The armed forces aren't necessarily there to block physical invasions of our nation; they're in place to prevent people from even the thought of trying. If we cut back our defense to a level that suits many liberals, we'd be "sitting ducks" while we all sit around the camp fire singing folk songs and handing out welfare checks.

 

[KHE]

If you read what I stated, it was not a justification for bloated defense spending, which is crippling us financially. What I said was, that outrageous spending is no excuse to label our military as somehow unnecessary, which is precisely what was stated. History repeats itself - think about the US in the 1930s if our president had simply said, "Nah, Hitler's no biggie - just a crazy guy over there in Germany. He won't give us any trouble. And for the Japanese - those guys can't do anything to us." If you think that the only people out to get us are a few crazies in Yemen, you're way off, dude.

As for the national language thing - I wouldn't argue that it's unlikely we'll be speaking another language (maybe other than spanish) anytime soon, but that's precisely because our military is in place to prevent it. As a thought experiment, just remove the military from our budget. No army, no marines, no navy, no air force, nothing. Maybe we'd keep the coast guard just for good measure and because their color schemes are pretty cool-looking. Think how long it would be before someone takes a shot at us. Who would it be? .....Who cares? How long would it take?

The armed forces aren't necessarily there to block physical invasions of our nation; they're in place to prevent people from even the thought of trying. If we cut back our defense to a level that suits many liberals, we'd be "sitting ducks" while we all sit around the camp fire singing folk songs and handing out welfare checks.

Jason...

Maybe it could be a happy medium between what we have now and your "thought experiment" of having no army or navy whatsoever and sitting around a campfire. Instead of having an armed services that's 8 times larger than the next 40 nations combined, maybe we can have one that's just TWICE as big or even THREE times bigger if that makes you feel better.

I would also like to know who would be "taking a shot at us." It won't be Canada. Trust me when I say that Canadians don't want to invade here. The beer and the doughnuts are much better in Canada there's much more hockey on TV in Canada and those three thngs are pretty much all that Canadians care about. Oh...and curling too.

It won't be Mexico. They are already invading us and they don't even use their army.

So who's left? The Chinese? Why would they want to "take a shot?" They already own us. They don't need to waste a bullet. People rant and rave about Obama bowing to some Chinese dude but considering what we owe them we're lucky that Chinese guy didn't demand that Obama get on all fours and perform an act illegal in 13 states.

The only people who "want to take a shot at us" use bombs in their underpants or our own airplanes. How does having 37 of the biggest, baddest nuclear powered air craft carriers help us defend that? I mean, it looks really cool on the National Geographic channel and all but does it help us defend against that type of shot?

 

[Ben Chudner]

Your posts have devolved into personal attacks and topics that are not relevant to the original topic so I am closing this thread.