Neo-con blogger bashes libertarians:

[bigus_D]

Probably time for me to add that "libertarian" and "Libertarian" are not synonymous. ...

^^^ THIS! ^^^

I would go on to say that I don't believe most Libertarians are isolationists. While Libertarians are most likely against intervention in foreign conflicts, this is not isolationism. A true libertarian should be for little or no economic protectionism (Note: economic protectionism is a key component of isolationism).

Reps to Rhino (if I wasn't cashed out).

 

[irishfan]

I do agree with the idea of getting rid of a lot of our military bases in other countries. We have something in the area of 10 bases in Japan along with Korea, Guam, Phillipines, Thailand, and various others througout that region. Why do we really need that many bases when most of the bases in Japan alone could consolidate into Okinawa. All over the world we have bases scattered everywhere when we could go to just one base in an area to keep our interests there. Also, we have the largest navy in the world and 11 carrier battle groups that can equal many countries entire military size by theirself. Our miltary has invested billions of dollars into cruise missiles and stealth bombers that require no troops to support them in the area they are preparing to strike so I do not see the need of thousands of support personnel on bases all over the world. Finally, I do not agree with pulling all of our troops out of the world bases but the money saved for America by consolidation around the world would be much better spent in areas of need rather than waste.

 

[rambone]

Probably time for me to add that "libertarian" and "Libertarian" are not synonymous.
One is a term for belief in and adherence to some fundamental, quintessentially American principles (i.e. the primacy and dignity of the indivdual, individual liberty and freedom, and the commensurate responsibility that is intrinsically linked to that liberty and freedom), whereas the latter is a political party with an agenda and a platform.

After reading some of the blogs on that website, he definitely has a problem with "libertarians." He thinks the Republican Party should get rid of these "crazies," so they can win elections. LOL

Political labels continue to progress toward meaningless words, primarily because no two people can seem to use them consistently with the same definition. I never understood what "neo-con" was supposed to be, whether it was a proud statement or some kind of derisive insult or both. It's meaningless to me, much in the same way "liberal" is.

As far as I knew, a Neoconservative is a Big-Government Conservative. Essentially, not conservative, but claiming to be. Conservatism may have its faults to some of us, but it does not stand for big spending and creating government agencies. Those who claim to be conservatives and do that stuff are giving their claimed principles a bad name.

There is a blog from only a few days ago on that site that explains why he feels to be a Neocon and why he's proud of it. A rare breed.

I had to share.

 

[Joe Williams]

I do agree with the idea of getting rid of a lot of our military bases in other countries. We have something in the area of 10 bases in Japan along with Korea, Guam, Phillipines, Thailand, and various others througout that region. snip.

Now, see, this post illustrates the lack of basic knowledge of folks who yipe about why we should go turtle and withdraw our troops to the US, or leave only a sacrificial force overseas.

I am going to be interested to see if anyone else can spot the error in basic fact in the part of the post I've quoted. It's an important mistake, and one that illustrates how people fail to do elementary homework.

 

[henktermaat]

I still don't know what a "neo-con" is.
is that like Keanau Reeve's Character, hustling folks on the street corner?

^^ This. I thought it meant young, or "new" first-generation conservative.

 

[groovatron]

Yep, we kept troops there. And as a result we haven't had to send them there to fight, again. Seems cheaper to me to have 'em in place and successfully deterring another world war for more than half a century.

"Seems "cheaper" huh? Succesfully deterring another world war? WTF!!

How about we start by not giving 8 billion dollars a year in the form of aid to countries that hate us. I'd take that as a first step happily.

Now, see, this post illustrates the lack of basic knowledge of folks who yipe about why we should go turtle and withdraw our troops to the US, or leave only a sacrificial force overseas.

I am going to be interested to see if anyone else can spot the error in basic fact in the part of the post I've quoted. It's an important mistake, and one that illustrates how people fail to do elementary homework.

Sounds like a bunch of talk to me. Please enlighten us with your "facts." It would be a refreshing step away from your blatent accusational cockiness.....and by the way Joe, you agreed with the blog......so are you gonna start sending money to the church of Obama?

 

[ihateiraq]

Now, see, this post illustrates the lack of basic knowledge of folks who yipe about why we should go turtle and withdraw our troops to the US, or leave only a sacrificial force overseas.

I am going to be interested to see if anyone else can spot the error in basic fact in the part of the post I've quoted. It's an important mistake, and one that illustrates how people fail to do elementary homework.

thats what we do. bases in europe kept tabs on the soviet union, and bases in the pacific region are how were keeping tabs on china. whos the one country that could hope to challenge us militarily? deterrence favors the defender.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I thought that might be your response. And to a certain extent, I don't disagree.

But I think it's an oversimplistic view to characterize foreign bases as serving only protective roles for the "host" nations. I also disagree that the benefits are unidirectional in favor of the host nations. How much harder would prosecution of a military engagement in the Middle East, for example, be if we didn't have bases in countries with whom we have friendly relations?

Our Navy is quite mobile and has the capability to have forces in any area of the world within days. Our Air Force is even more mobile and can react within a few hours. There is no need to have all of our forces spread out to foreign territories like they are.

How important it is that wounded service personnel only have to travel as far as Germany instead of back to the U.S.?

I find that question answerable differently depending on the situation. If we did not have troops on foreign land, then I fail to see how our service personnel become wounded. If we are at war on foreign land, then I can see a benefit to having it, but we also have mobile hospital ships that can also provide service to our wounded.

How important is it that we don't have to worry about logistics for non-bomber air combat/support missions because we can only launch from the U.S?

Navy aircraft carriers that can do the job. Other countries have bases and airports in which we could use as well. I think because of technological advances in weapons and other supportive hardware we have available today, large Army and Marine forces just aren't necessary any longer. I think we need to reduce both of the branches and build up our Air force and Navy. Both of those are where first responses come from and they can both handle most any situation. How would you suppose we would be logically and tactically if we had our Navy fleet built up to the number where we not only had plenty at our own US bases, but also had ship groups patrolling the waters around the globe where the entire globe would be reachable within a very short time?

The tank landing ship I was stationed on was large enough to carry 400 Marines plus around 20 AAV's below deck and had a helo pad as well. We could basically remove all foreign land bases and make them mobile by water. It would certainly reduce the risk of a planned attack on military installations.

How important is it that no matter who might be responsible for an attack, we are strategically placed throughout the world on some level to provide at least a minimum of response in near immediate terms rather than having to wait for however long it took to mobilize an entire combat unit because every last response option we have is on U.S. soil?

US. Navy

With the exception of bomber strikes, we would be severely limited in the scope and scale of our reach. What would the "cost" of those things be?

I'd also argue that military bases on foreign soil are a bit of a bargaining chip, just another tool in the tool box known as foreign relations. On the surface our presence may be seen as a one-way street benefits derived for the host nation. But only a fool would think that they "Hey, we can leave and find another more accommodating neighbor" doesn't come into play.

Now, I know that the isolationist prong of the L platform is going to argue that we shouldn't become embroiled in wars on foreign soil. But for ****s and giggles, let's assume that we are attacked? Are you suggesting that we fight only on our soil? That we don't take the fight to them and ruin their land, their economy, their stability?

I seriously don't understand why some people on here can't grasp the concept that libertarians are not isolationist...it is a completely incorrect label...if libertarians are isolationists, then republicans are for big government. Yes, we take the fight to them...
Iraq certainly did not fall into that category, so we did it all wrong IMHO.
Afghanistan is a complete waste of our resources as they currently stand. Only a small elite force with CIA involvement could handle this situation.

The idea that we could ever have avoided playing on the world stage is almost laughable. Our infancy made us appealing targets: unformed armies, lack of a strong central government, divisions within our own member states. The list was long. From the get-go we were forced to accept and prepare for the eventuality of attack. That hasn't changed. Only the motivation behind the potential attacks.

I'd love to discuss the foreign aid side of it. As well as the use of "imperialism" to describe our presence in other countries (talk about a gross error in characterization.) But it's late and I need to get to bed. So while I don't disagree that there are some seriously flawed policy decisions being made, it's irresponsible and unrealistic to think that we can just take our ball and go home now.

I don't think anyone on here thinks we could have avoided all of the actions we have been involved in, but I feel very confident that there are several events in which we could have avoided all together and been better off for it.

Just look at what we did to help Israel lately...
We go into Iraq to rid it of Saddam, but before we got there he was able to move plenty of weapons to Syria. Syria has since transferred these weapons to Lebanon where Hezbullah is getting their hands on them to use against Israel...compliments of your good pals from the USA!

Not to mention all of the weapons we gave Afghanistan during their fight against Russia that are now being used against our troops. That is some great foreign policy right there.

I don't claim to have all of the right answers, but I can bet you there is a workable solution that counters the Neo-Con way in most any circumstance that also protects Americans lives.

 

[Joe Williams]

"Seems "cheaper" huh? Succesfully deterring another world war? WTF!!


Sounds like a bunch of talk to me. Please enlighten us with your "facts." It would be a refreshing step away from your blatent accusational cockiness.....and by the way Joe, you agreed with the blog......so are you gonna start sending money to the church of Obama?

Yes, cheaper. I think deterring a war instead of suffering mass casualties fighting a real world war is cheaper. Of course, maybe you are more concerned about money than the lives of American servicemen.

Since you apparently are also blissfully unaware of the little fact I was referring to, I will indeed be glad to enlighten you. Guam is not a country, despite the fact the poster listed it as such. It is, in fact, part of the United States, and it's residents are American citizens. I'm sure you don't think we should withdraw our protection of them merely because they happen to be brown skinned citizens.

 

[irishfan]

Now, see, this post illustrates the lack of basic knowledge of folks who yipe about why we should go turtle and withdraw our troops to the US, or leave only a sacrificial force overseas.

I am going to be interested to see if anyone else can spot the error in basic fact in the part of the post I've quoted. It's an important mistake, and one that illustrates how people fail to do elementary homework.

Please share as apparently I can't do elementary homework. Also, who said a sacrificial force except you? I said consolidate all the Japan bases to one large one instead of several small bases. Also, I don't see the point of so many bases in Europe when we could go to just 1-2 and accomplish having boots on the ground there.

 

[groovatron]

Yes, cheaper. I think deterring a war instead of suffering mass casualties fighting a real world war is cheaper. Of course, maybe you are more concerned about money than the lives of American servicemen.

Since you apparently are also blissfully unaware of the little fact I was referring to, I will indeed be glad to enlighten you. Guam is not a country, despite the fact the poster listed it as such. It is, in fact, part of the United States, and it's residents are American citizens. I'm sure you don't think we should withdraw our protection of them merely because they happen to be brown skinned citizens.

Okay, okay.....but what about you openly agreeing with an Obamatard?.........that has me in stitches

 

[irishfan]

Yes, cheaper. I think deterring a war instead of suffering mass casualties fighting a real world war is cheaper. Of course, maybe you are more concerned about money than the lives of American servicemen.

Since you apparently are also blissfully unaware of the little fact I was referring to, I will indeed be glad to enlighten you. Guam is not a country, despite the fact the poster listed it as such. It is, in fact, part of the United States, and it's residents are American citizens. I'm sure you don't think we should withdraw our protection of them merely because they happen to be brown skinned citizens.

I will enlighten you as well since you were to busy with a ridiculous post to read what I wrote. I said that Guam was in that REGION and we have so many other bases in that REGION and do not need them all. Also, how are all of the bases in Japan helpng protect Americans along with all the other bases when one base in that country can provide needed support? We are in a war two wars right now and it seems that most of the air support has came from the carrier fleet, Diego Garcia, B2's out of Missouri, and some other air support in the middle east. IMO, troops are no worse off in any way if several of the bases around the world were consolidated into a few per region since we use our carrier fleet and long range bombers so much today.

 

[Joe Williams]

I will enlighten you as well since you were to busy with a ridiculous post to read what I wrote. I said that Guam was in that REGION and we have so many other bases in that REGION and do not need them all. Also, how are all of the bases in Japan helpng protect Americans along with all the other bases when one base in that country can provide needed support? We are in a war two wars right now and it seems that most of the air support has came from the carrier fleet, Diego Garcia, B2's out of Missouri, and some other air support in the middle east. IMO, troops are no worse off in any way if several of the bases around the world were consolidated into a few per region since we use our carrier fleet and long range bombers so much today.

No sir. The word "region" was absolutely not in your post. If you meant something different, perhaps you should have said something different before someone corrected you. And your little fantasy that carriers can replace boots on the ground is equally specious, and again betrays a lack of knowledge of what the uses and limitations of the various means of projecting power are. Not to mention, one big base sounds pretty, it is financially cheaper that way, it's easier to control and maintain... until you find yourself trapped in it. Or trying to stretch a logistical chain across a continent, or an ocean. Or trying to maneuver from one fixed location, dealing with an enemy free to run circles around your one little spot. Your solution is merely a recipe for massacre.

 

[irishfan]

No sir. The word "region" was absolutely not in your post. If you meant something different, perhaps you should have said something different before someone corrected you. And your little fantasy that carriers can replace boots on the ground is equally specious, and again betrays a lack of knowledge of what the uses and limitations of the various means of projecting power are. Not to mention, one big base sounds pretty, it is financially cheaper that way, it's easier to control and maintain... until you find yourself trapped in it. Or trying to stretch a logistical chain across a continent, or an ocean. Or trying to maneuver from one fixed location, dealing with an enemy free to run circles around your one little spot. Your solution is merely a recipe for massacre.

HEY JOE, go back and reread the part you quoted before from my post. IT SAYS REGION....I am done debating with someone who refuses to see another side and bashes before the read.

 

[Joe Williams]

HEY JOE, go back and reread the part you quoted before from my post. IT SAYS REGION....I am done debating with someone who refuses to see another side and bashes before the read.

Bye. Reckon that's easier than dealing with those pesky little downsides I mentioned about your plan.

 

[irishfan]

Bye. Reckon that's easier than dealing with those pesky little downsides I mentioned about your plan.

No sir, you can't admit you screwed up and mis-quoted me and then tried to add to it except you are wrong again and the proof is in your own quote from my post. We all have different ideas and I do not see how your points are any more viable than others mentioned and your ideas are much more expensive.

 

[Joe Williams]

No sir, you can't admit you screwed up and mis-quoted me and then tried to add to it except you are wrong again and the proof is in your own quote from my post. We all have different ideas and I do not see how your points are any more viable than others mentioned and your ideas are much more expensive.

Expensive? Reckon that depends on whether you value money, or soldier's lives, more.

 

[irishfan]

Expensive? Reckon that depends on whether you value money, or soldier's lives, more.

You read what you quoted from my post yet? Come on Joe....you know you screwed up so admit it.

 

[groovatron]

Expensive? Reckon that depends on whether you value money, or soldier's lives, more.

Oh crap......Joe said "reckon".....now things are getting serious

 

[ocsdor]