"Barney Frank and Ron Paul: Cut Military Spending"

Once again, the only two people on capitol hill with both their balls and brains intact....

http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/07/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-cut-military-spending

Ron Paul, ’08 GOP presidential contender, is a conservative libertarian leading light and tea party hero. Barney Frank is a no-apologies liberal Democrat.

They agree on one big thing. America’s giant military budget must be cut, in a giant way: a trillion-dollar cut over the next decade.

We can’t afford our own security policy, say Frank and Paul. And it’s not making us secure. It’s time for a new strategy, they say. Time to put the vast Pentagon budget on the table, and start slashing

Click to expand...

it's got to happen sometime. i mean how much is being completely wasted on all these "essential" fighter/bomber programs, who on earth are you defending yourself from? extremists strapped to kites or something?

abe23 said:

Once again, the only two people on capitol hill with both their balls and brains intact....

http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/07/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-cut-military-spending

Click to expand...

Agreed. Bring Team America back home. Individuals who want to go overseas to fight and earn a living, more power to them. Our government shouldn't be involved.

Of course when you used balls and Barney Frank you do know you have left the door wide open for gay jokes don't you? lol

Barney would probably like to Play with Paul's balls.

This Is A Very Reasonable Perspective, But Method And Timing Is Essential In Doing So. I Would Study And Research The Various Variables, Equations And Formulas Relatively Speaking And Look For Relative Systemic Modifications And Simplification With A Three To Five Years Time Line, If All Goes According To PRINCIPAL.

Thus, Once The Congress Begin To Do These RIGHT According To The TIMEs And If The Military Continue To Do Things More And More RIGHT According To The PRINCIPAL, Then A MATURATION And Thus A Simplification Relatively Speaking Will Accur And Thus Cuts Will Not Be Necessary Because, Natural And Sensible Revisions Will Evolve.

In Summary, It Doesn't Have To Be As Hard And Blasphemous As They Have Been Making Things, Relatively Speaking.

Prophecy said:

This Is A Very Reasonable Perspective, But Method And Timing Is Essential In Doing So. I Would Study And Research The Various Variables, Equations And Formulas Relatively Speaking And Look For Relative Systemic Modifications And Simplification With A Three To Five Years Time Line, If All Goes According To PRINCIPAL.

Thus, Once The Congress Begin To Do These RIGHT According To The TIMEs And If The Military Continue To Do Things More And More RIGHT According To The PRINCIPAL, Then A MATURATION And Thus A Simplification Relatively Speaking Will Accur And Thus Cuts Will Not Be Necessary Because, Natural And Sensible Revisions Will Evolve.

In Summary, It Doesn't Have To Be As Hard And Blasphemous As They Have Been Making Things, Relatively Speaking.

Click to expand...

Was there a yard sale on capitalized letters?

Prophecy said:

This Is A Very Reasonable Perspective, But Method And Timing Is Essential In Doing So. I Would Study And Research The Various Variables, Equations And Formulas Relatively Speaking And Look For Relative Systemic Modifications And Simplification With A Three To Five Years Time Line, If All Goes According To PRINCIPAL.

Thus, Once The Congress Begin To Do These RIGHT According To The TIMEs And If The Military Continue To Do Things More And More RIGHT According To The PRINCIPAL, Then A MATURATION And Thus A Simplification Relatively Speaking Will Accur And Thus Cuts Will Not Be Necessary Because, Natural And Sensible Revisions Will Evolve.

In Summary, It Doesn't Have To Be As Hard And Blasphemous As They Have Been Making Things, Relatively Speaking.

Click to expand...

No cuts in spending, just how do you suggest we curtail spending if we make no cuts at all? NONSENSE POST.

I agree with Ron and Barney. We can no longer afford to police the world.

especialyl a world that doesnt really want to be policed in the first place.
give it 50 yrs, and well be back on top again.

i dont think we were "policing"

we were just making sure our interests were looked after right.

so... who is going to make sure our interests are in good hands now???

hmmmmmm

United states defense spending has been over 50% of global world defense spending at least since the beginning of the Iraq war - I think we've done more than our share of policing and it's time to let Europe and Asia carry some of the weight.

Our interests? What interests do we have in keeping troops in South Korea when the South Koreans could easily whip the North if they invaded? What interests do we have in keeping troops stationed in Germany? Or Japan? Or in most of the other roughly 100 nations we have soldiers, sailors or marines on the ground? Why do we need 12 aircraft carrier groups when the next most powerful navy in the world can only boast of 2?

I'll tell you why. Force projection. It is the way in which we bend the rest of the world to our will. That my friends is imperialism.

It is past time that we drew down our military and concentrated on our own borders and our own nation. Even if we halved our military we would still have the most powerful military force on the face of the planet.

Countryfarmer said:

Our interests? What interests do we have in keeping troops in South Korea when the South Koreans could easily whip the North if they invaded? What interests do we have in keeping troops stationed in Germany? Or Japan? Or in most of the other roughly 100 nations we have soldiers, sailors or marines on the ground? Why do we need 12 aircraft carrier groups when the next most powerful navy in the world can only boast of 2?

I'll tell you why. Force projection. It is the way in which we bend the rest of the world to our will. That my friends is imperialism.

It is past time that we drew down our military and concentrated on our own borders and our own nation. Even if we halved our military we would still have the most powerful military force on the face of the planet.

Click to expand...

so we are guarding the "empire"...

so there we go... we cut spending and the fragile pieces will fall eventually.
the interest in korea is all the money and soldiers that have been spent to keep it capitalist friendly.
the interest in germany and japan are simple. too many lives were given to "Give up" these military bases.
we talk loud and carry nuclear missiles....

if the empire cant pay their army.... hmmm what happened to the Roman empire?

Rome's citizens lost their rights and the empire fell, Britain had an empire, but after WW1 they began socialism, Peoples rights were taken, empire lost. USA is empire, but not for too much longer, soon as you take citizens rights away your empire falls. How many more rights will they take before this happens? Its the same story throughout history.

Countryfarmer said:

Our interests? What interests do we have in keeping troops in South Korea when the South Koreans could easily whip the North if they invaded?

Click to expand...

really? i thought the only reason their is still even a south korea was because of the U.S. military. wouldn't south korea either surrender or get their asses kicked as soon as we left and adopted a hands off policy? i would assume the day we left korea would cease to exist and would be known as china from that day on

NoDrama said:

Rome's citizens lost their rights and the empire fell, Britain had an empire, but after WW1 they began socialism, Peoples rights were taken, empire lost. USA is empire, but not for too much longer, soon as you take citizens rights away your empire falls. How many more rights will they take before this happens? Its the same story throughout history.

Click to expand...

And those who fight the course of history will be buried by it and those who decide to ride the wave will rise above.

beardo said:

really? i thought the only reason their is still even a south korea was because of the U.S. military. wouldn't south korea either surrender or get their asses kicked as soon as we left and adopted a hands off policy? i would assume the day we left korea would cease to exist and would be known as china from that day on

Click to expand...

South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. They have thirty times the economic power of North Korea. And they spend three times as much each year on military spending than North Korea. South Korea would spank North Korea in a heads up war.

Countryfarmer said:

South Korea has twice the population of North Korea. They have thirty times the economic power of North Korea. And they spend three times as much each year on military spending than North Korea. South Korea would spank North Korea in a heads up war.

Click to expand...

Maybe. The north has one of the largest conventional armies in the world. One of the big issues is that they have thousand of pieces of artillery within range of seoul, which would mean that any conflict would be very costly for the south. Who knows if they could field their nukes, but they have those as well.

But that's not really the point...

We should see what we can afford first, make sure we can defend ourselves and if there's anything left to support allies in europe or asia, that would be nice. But let's not put ourselves into debt to make sure europe and japan are safe from bully neighbors....they're grown-ups. They can take care of themselves.

North Korea MAY have a few nuclear warheads of about the same power as the Hiroshima bomb (quite tiny actually). The bigger danger is their tremendous stockpile of chemical weapons which can be delivered via artillery. As you correctly stated, they have a tremendous number of artillery weapons aimed at Seoul and could do great damage to that city.

But here is the kicker. The US and South Korea have numerous treaties in place in which we have obligated ourselves to defend South Korea as if it were American soil. And the US has a long-standing policy that any use of chemical or biological weaponry by a belligerent nation is to be treated as if that nation used nuclear weaponry. That means we would respond with nuclear weapons to a chemical attack on South Korea. Unless North Korea has a death wish that means such an attack will never occur.

We are in agreement though in a draw down of our military might around the world which would force other countries to have to field their own defensive forces. One of the things I always find humorous is how so many on the far left point to european nations' social programs as the goal for our nation when those nations are only able to afford their broad social programs because the citizenry of the United States is paying for a significant portion of their national defense via our military might being stationed in and around their borders.

I say draw down the military by half and fund our existing social programs that we know will become insolvent during most of our lifetimes (medicare, medicaid, social security).