what do you think? Say a war broke out between Thailand and Cambodia, should the US get involved?

Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering as a result of the war, kids are dying, people are starving

Should we intervene?

I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

Thank you Bob.
I'm in agreement on helping those in need unlike Mr. Chris Paul here.

fatbob309 wrote:I am reminded, on this holy day, of the sad story of Kitty Genovese. As you all may remember, a long time ago, almost thirty years ago, this poor soul cried out for help time and time again, but no person answered her calls. Though many saw, no one so much as called the police. They all just watched as Kitty was being stabbed to death in broad daylight. They watched as her assailant walked away.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

Imagine this scenario

We rush off to help out two countries fighting, we engage in a bloody conflict, and as a country we can not monetarily afford the war, inflation increases.

The war ends after 10 years with no declared winner. As a result of our involvement over 1 million civilians are killed. We kill over 800,000 of the enemies troops. Our military suffers a 57,000 deaths and over 100,000 wounded.

As a result of our war, we inadvertantly sicken an additional 3 million people as a result of chemical weapons we used

The end result, 3,100,000 wounded and 1,857,000 people are killed

The war did not serve the interests of the United States, the countries involved did not threaten our sovereignty or pose an economic threat to us.

Would we have been better off not being involved?

"The camp commandant, Rudolf Höß, testifed at the Nuremberg Trials that 3 million people had died at Auschwitz during his stay as a commandant. Later he decreased his estimate to about 1.1 million. The death toll given by the Soviets and accepted by many was 4,000,000 people. This number was written on the plaques in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum"
One camp... One war...

The Holocaust took the lives of between 5.1 to 6.0 million Jews.

The Germans did not threaten our sovereignty or pose an economic threat to us when we went to war. CCould the US have made a impact if we went to war before that Dec Day?

offroadaz wrote:Imagine this scenario

We rush off to help out two countries fighting, we engage in a bloody conflict, and as a country we can not monetarily afford the war, inflation increases.

The war ends after 10 years with no declared winner. As a result of our involvement over 1 million civilians are killed. We kill over 800,000 of the enemies troops. Our military suffers a 57,000 deaths and over 100,000 wounded.

As a result of our war, we inadvertantly sicken an additional 3 million people as a result of chemical weapons we used

The end result, 3,100,000 wounded and 1,857,000 people are killed

The war did not serve the interests of the United States, the countries involved did not threaten our sovereignty or pose an economic threat to us.

Would we have been better off not being involved?

Or imagine it this way

We don’t get involved due to economic reasons and inflation still increases.

The war continues anyway and rages for 15 years with 5 million + civilians dead and similar military losses total from both sides and the number of wounded are un-fathomable. China steps in to “help” end the war and makes the whole region communist rule, killing and wounding 100’s of thousands more in the process. More are left stricken in horrid and disfiguring ways because they figured it would be a good “testing” ground for their new biological weapons. But who cares, we were not threatened.

Next on the China block, South Korea, we don’t care, we pulled out 10 years earlier due to politicians saying that constitutionally we can not spend government money on foreign policy and that was deemed to include having military in other countries so we have pulled all our troops home and have no military bases outside the US. It’s all about us now baby, who cares about them………Next up, them Japs!!!!




Yea, I was called at home a few nights ago by a Ron Paul supporter who wanted to “tell me all the good things Ron Paul has to do”. One of his big points was Ron Paul does not believe the Government has the right to spend our money on foreign policy, helping foreign countries and possibly not even having our troops stationed in foreign countries……..

Sorry, I may not agree with all the decisions our government makes about the wars they get us in, but I have to assume they have a lot more of the details than I do and that their decisions are based on a lot more intel than our speculations…..

AZLugz wrote:Or imagine it this way

We don’t get involved due to economic reasons and inflation still increases.

The war continues anyway and rages for 15 years with 5 million + civilians dead and similar military losses total from both sides and the number of wounded are un-fathomable. China steps in to “help” end the war and makes the whole region communist rule, killing and wounding 100’s of thousands more in the process. More are left stricken in horrid and disfiguring ways because they figured it would be a good “testing” ground for their new biological weapons. But who cares, we were not threatened.

Next on the China block, South Korea, we don’t care, we pulled out 10 years earlier due to politicians saying that constitutionally we can not spend government money on foreign policy and that was deemed to include having military in other countries so we have pulled all our troops home and have no military bases outside the US. It’s all about us now baby, who cares about them………Next up, them Japs!!!!

That seems to be an extreme worst case scenario, and not likely to happen. The one I posted did happen, those figures are from the vietnam war.

As far as bases around the world realistically they are not needed.

Our military has advanced beyond belief since the days of WWII. We used to require hundreds of thousands of troops to take an objective, now it can be accomplished by bombing and a few thousand troops to followup and secure it.

What is the point of having troops stationed around the world in friendly countries? They are not there for security or peace keeping.

We can close down the vast majority of our foreign bases, bring them home, use alot of the resources to secure our borders and ports. This would also save the taxpayers millions of dollars that can be used to combat inflation and our increasing debt.

We could leave several of our carrier groups out in international waters for quick strike missions. We should focus on ways to quickly deploy troops based in America rather then keeping bases in other countries.

Americas personal security and well being should come before any other countries.

Id like to encourage you to read these articles by Paul on foreign policy. Even if you do not agree, you will at least be challenged in your beliefs.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=10

Another interesting thought, how did the US win the cold war? Both countries had nuclear weapons, both had a huge military. The short answer is the Soviet Union went bankrupt.

Would it suprise you to find out that al-qaeda is using this exact same strategy against us? They know they can not defeat us militarily. Their only hope of victory is a collapse of the US economy.

fatbob309 wrote:"
The Germans did not threaten our sovereignty or pose an economic threat to us when we went to war. CCould the US have made a impact if we went to war before that Dec Day?

There are times when we do need to go to war, we should go in with overwhelming force, inflict massive amounts of damage, kill as many of the enemy as possible, obtain our objective and then leave. We should not be involved in post war nation building. We should not be involved in pre-emptive wars or wars on behalf of other nations.

offroadaz wrote:That seems to be an extreme worst case scenario, and not likely to happen. The one I posted did happen, those figures are from the vietnam war.

As far as bases around the world realistically they are not needed.

Our military has advanced beyond belief since the days of WWII. We used to require hundreds of thousands of troops to take an objective, now it can be accomplished by bombing and a few thousand troops to followup and secure it.

What is the point of having troops stationed around the world in friendly countries? They are not there for security or peace keeping.

We can close down the vast majority of our foreign bases, bring them home, use alot of the resources to secure our borders and ports. This would also save the taxpayers millions of dollars that can be used to combat inflation and our increasing debt.

We could leave several of our carrier groups out in international waters for quick strike missions. We should focus on ways to quickly deploy troops based in America rather then keeping bases in other countries.

Americas personal security and well being should come before any other countries.

Id like to encourage you to read these articles by Paul on foreign policy. Even if you do not agree, you will at least be challenged in your beliefs.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=10

Another interesting thought, how did the US win the cold war? Both countries had nuclear weapons, both had a huge military. The short answer is the Soviet Union went bankrupt.

Would it suprise you to find out that al-qaeda is using this exact same strategy against us? They know they can not defeat us militarily. Their only hope of victory is a collapse of the US economy.

Obviously you have not been part of the military.

Another part of your feeling would be.....an assumption on my part based that if we don't need that many bases we won't need so many member either....that we should vastly downsize the military

offroadaz wrote:
Id like to encourage you to read these articles by Paul on foreign policy. Even if you do not agree, you will at least be challenged in your beliefs.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=10

.

Sorry, a lot of what he has to say on that subject and on the military just pisses me off and this day has been far long enough as it is

AZLugz wrote:Obviously you have not been part of the military.

Another part of your feeling would be.....an assumption on my part based that if we don't need that many bases we won't need so many member either....that we should vastly downsize the military

The army is for defending America against all threats foreign and domestic. It is not meant for peacekeeping missions in other nations where America has no practical interests. Our military should never engage in conflicts based on other nations/organizations laws or rulings.

Why not bring the troops home from overseas and position them on the border and our sea ports? Lets focus on securing our country rather then trying to police others.

offroadaz wrote:The army is for defending America against all threats foreign and domestic. It is not meant for peacekeeping missions in other nations where America has no practical interests. Our military should never engage in conflicts based on other nations/organizations laws or rulings.

Why not bring the troops home from overseas and position them on the border and our sea ports? Lets focus on securing our country rather then trying to police others.

You tell 'em, FDR!

offroadaz wrote:The army is for defending America against all threats foreign and domestic. It is not meant for peacekeeping missions in other nations where America has no practical interests. Our military should never engage in conflicts based on other nations/organizations laws or rulings.

Why not bring the troops home from overseas and position them on the border and our sea ports? Lets focus on securing our country rather then trying to police others.

You really are brainwashed.

I guess if you truely believe what you have typed, there is nothing I can say to make you understand, I just thank God and past presidents that we have never, as a country, taken on this ideal

I couldn't agree more with the fact we need to be at least stationed in other countries. But I do however disagree with the way we act as Global Police. I think we should keep out of some of the conflicts we involve ourselves.