VTXDave
Well-Known Member
It truly is woefully obvious that the Republican Party employs fear tactics. However, the Dem candidates are using the same as well. When I read statements such as this from their speeches...OK, let me address the increase in the military thing. First, yeah, I wish we could do away with all militarys. That being said, Our military is short handed for the uses intended, There are National Guard troops on 3rd and 4th rotations out of Iraq. There aren't enough brigades to even think about putting them in any other hot spot, Like Darfur, Congo, etc. I wish we weren't the worlds policemen, but if we are, then we need more cannon fodder. The smart military personell are getting out as fast as they can. No more rotations for them. The not so smart ones are paying the price with longer deployments and shorter homestays. That is what Obama was saying. The facts are, if we are to continue being the dominant force in the world, (Something I am opposed to), we need more military personel and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the draft instituted. BTW, Obama needs to look tough on terrorism or the repukes will attack him with the fear tactics. The way I see it, that is all the repukes have, Fear.
Obama said:We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program... I will not take the military option off the table.
...Does it not sound exactly like what the Bush Administration was stating prior to the invasion of Iraq?Hillary said:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
A military, IMO, is necessary and it is provided for by the US Constitution...
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Even in the Preamble...To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
It infers a military....for the common defense and not for projecting power and interests on a global scale.We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Unfortunately, we have transformed our military to suit the needs of Empire Building. This is unconstitutional, IMO of course. When we hear a Rep employing this rhetoric, we call them hawks and warmongers. When we hear the same from a Dem we call it pandering. I for one make no distinction. More Dems have gotten the US involved in wars than Reps.
I hear nothing from any of the main 3 frontrunners about anything regarding reducing our troops and withdrawing. The money we could save and shift to other programs to directly benefit US citizens would be staggering...simply by refusing to prop up an Empire that suits the needs of corporate interests.
The Reps, as well as the Dems, will maintain the Status Quo...period.