Jump to content
EagleBurn

2016 Election Thread

Recommended Posts

Our nation was never in danger of not existing since at least the turn of the 20th century.

 

Thanks to a strong military.  'danger' doesn't necessarily mean foregin invasion.

Irrelevant. We can still destroy every singular country's military force multiple times over with what we're floating around. 

 

Debatable.  Alot of anti-military type always seem to have this unfounded faith that our military is this invincible force and can easily function with a 1/4 of the funds, which it cannot... especially when it's run by weak, liberal politicians.  Keep reducing our militaries funding and we easily get worked over by other super powers.  Do you have any idea how many men are in the Chinese army?  

Our military at the turn of WW2 was woefully unprepared for a global war. Within a year we were handing Hitler's and Tojo's asses to them.

 

thanks especially to geographical benefits and Russia stomping the shit out of the entire German 6th army (800,000 troops initially planned to defend against british and american forces) as well as a 4-5 year build up period (1939 - 1944)... not 1 year lol. 

 

Also, when we entered the european theatre, the Nazi's were already on the decline.  Had Hitler not invaded Russia, they would've handed us our asses.  I'd bet Europe would still be under german rule. 

 

Operating a military complex that solely exists to prevent the sudden, unpredicted, and full-scale invasion of China on both borders is absolutely silly; it's never going to happen.

 

Who said 'sole existence'?  Yes, it is one reason to have a strong military....  deterance.  Also, you must be able to predict the future... Our entire world history on the other hand has been founded by the conquering and taking of foreign lands.  What makes you think this can't happen anymore?

 

Pardon me, but while Russia's aggression may be related to the country being run by a lunatic, it is also related to American imperial interests and geopolitical meddling in its satellite countries (whether this is legit like in the Ukraine or FUBAR like in the Middle East is neither here nor there). 

 

Russia just sailed a naval fleet down the English Channel and into the Mediterrainian.  Their bullying in the ME and potentially into eastern European countries is a real threat especailly considering what HRC might do with more and more sanctions on them.  Putin is in a corner right now and were poking the bear.

 

For someone who is all, "fuck people on welfare", you sure seem concerned about other countries' abilities to resist political and military pressure. Keep in mind that Europe collectively can easily hold its own against Russia. 

 

"incinerate the welfare population"...  100% serious there lol.

 

Or we could just fund NASA, since "military technology" today means "who builds the best rockets, payload delivery, and scanning systems". 

 

So you want to turn NASA into a military organization?  I cant forsee ANY problems with that!  Also, lol at ballistics being the only thing we need to develop technology in.  Is NASA going to start designing our Naval Fleet and "F" designated warplanes too?

 

How does having dozens and dozens of fully-staffed military and intelligence bases around the globe - in moronic locations like Japan, for example - help us build a better bomb?

 

 

Let's just ignore current strike capabilities in terms of distance and reaction time.  There's a reason China is developing man-made islands throughout the Pacific for strategical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

I love how you guys think decreasing our military spending by even a little will mean we're not the GREETIST anymore, seriously we can cut the budget and still be spending more than the next 10 countries below us.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I love how you guys think decreasing our military spending by even a little will mean we're not the GREETIST anymore, seriously we can cut the budget and still be spending more than the next 10 countries below us.

 

Obama wanted to reduce our military to 1940 levels and our Navy to 1915 levels and airforce to smallest levels in history.  That's what I'm arguing against.

 

I would support reductions in our nuclear program... specifically, I do not think we need an arsenal of thousands of ICBM's and the required maintenance / delivery systems and if there is one aspect of overall military cuts proposed that I might support, it would be ground units (soviet era big army).  That kind've stuff requires the least amount of technology and takes far less time to produce than warplanes, destroyers, subs and aircraft carriers. Cuts in our navy and airforce would be problematic and I couldn't support that.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I love how you guys think decreasing our military spending by even a little will mean we're not the GREETIST anymore, seriously we can cut the budget and still be spending more than the next 10 countries below us.

Not only that, but we are spending more than the #2-#8 country's expenditures COMBINED by a decent margin (can almost fit in #9 too). Don't know how anyone could see that and still think that we should either keep doing what we're doing, or spend MORE.

Share this post


Link to post

Obama wanted to reduce our military to 1940 levels and our Navy to 1915 levels and airforce to smallest levels in history.  That's what I'm arguing against.

 

I would support reductions in our nuclear program... specifically, I do not think we need an arsenal of thousands of ICBM's and the required maintenance / delivery systems and if there is one aspect of overall military cuts proposed that I might support, it would be ground units (soviet era big army).  That kind've stuff requires the least amount of technology and takes far less time to produce than warplanes, destroyers, subs and aircraft carriers. Cuts in our navy and airforce would be problematic and I couldn't support that.

 

No coincidence that both world wars took place around these times. If Obama has his way, prolly looking at WWIII over here

Share this post


Link to post

Your military is several times stronger than it would need to be in order to defend itself against any invasion. The rest of the world combined couldn't invade the USA.

Share this post


Link to post

Debatable.

Not debatable, in any way shape or form.

 

If any one country goes to war against the U.S., they lose. Badly.

 

Alot of anti-military type always seem to have this unfounded faith that our military is this invincible force and can easily function with a 1/4 of the funds, which it cannot... especially when it's run by weak, liberal politicians. Keep reducing our militaries funding and we easily get worked over by other super powers.

Our military is not idle. It's being used in bullshit excursions the world over, in various degrees. I am not against R&D, I am against the maintenance of a gigantic standing army that as the phrase goes "polices the world".

 

There is no reason we can't have our troops in reserve.

 

Do you have any idea how many men are in the Chinese army?

Ask the Russians how manpower worked out for them without rifles in their hands. For that matter, ask the Chinese how it worked out for them when Japan wrecked their shit.

 

thanks especially to geographical benefits and Russia stomping the shit out of the entire German 6th army (800,000 troops initially planned to defend against british and american forces) as well as a 4-5 year build up period (1939 - 1944)... not 1 year lol.

We went to war immediately after Pearl Harbor. We went from a moderate standing army to a worldwide kickass machine while the war was going on. There is no reason we don't have the same capability now.

 

Also, when we entered the european theatre, the Nazi's were already on the decline. Had Hitler not invaded Russia, they would've handed us our asses. I'd bet Europe would still be under german rule.

The Nazis were not "in decline" anymore than the British. True, maybe they found out that trying to conquer two entire continents probably wasn't a good idea, and maybe Hitler's army was overrated, but there's a reason D-Day was one of the most massive military operations in history - and there's a reason the U.S. was the one to spearhead it.

 

We also saved Russia's ass with supplies, so there's that. Our economy is our strength. 

 

Who said 'sole existence'? Yes, it is one reason to have a strong military.... deterance. Also, you must be able to predict the future... Our entire world history on the other hand has been founded by the conquering and taking of foreign lands. What makes you think this can't happen anymore?

Once again, we don't have to have a massive standing army to be a worldwide threat to anyone who gets out of line. We can mobilize like few other countries can, we're good at it. China is not afraid of twenty three military bases in Japan, they're afraid of what we can shore up when we get pissed off.

 

Of course it can happen. And should it happen, we should do something about it. 

 

Wake me when it does. 

 

Russia just sailed a naval fleet down the English Channel and into the Mediterrainian. Their bullying in the ME and potentially into eastern European countries is a real threat especailly considering what HRC might do with more and more sanctions on them. Putin is in a corner right now and were poking the bear.

Wtf I just we should stop meddling. Yeah, if we're going to play Earth Cop we definitely need a strong military presence the globe over...but we shouldn't be.

 

Why are we the the major player of these dumbass theaters? If it's such a huge crisis, why aren't western European countries bullying Putin back? There are only two rational answers; 1) they don't care, and by proxy we shouldn't care either, or 2) our motives are suspect. 

 

So you want to turn NASA into a military organization?

It basically already is, but no.

 

Also, lol at ballistics being the only thing we need to develop technology in. Is NASA going to start designing our Naval Fleet and "F" designated warplanes too?

Well if you have such little faith, why don't we take a quick breeze through all the things NASA has provided in the way of technological advancement...with shit funding over the past 30 years.

 

But hey, it can't hurt to give them the reigns. Apparently the military doesn't know how to design F-planes either. 

 

Let's just ignore current strike capabilities in terms of distance and reaction time. There's a reason China is developing man-made islands throughout the Pacific for strategical reasons.

And were we ever to want to invade China for some reason, that might be a problem.

 

Or...we could tell Japan to amend their stupid-ass constitution (a relic of our influence, by the way) to allow them to exert some muscle in the region. Because once again, I don't think we should have the biggest dogs in someone else's backyard. 

 

This isn't like we're protecting some wayward African country with no means of defending itself, either. All of these regions have strong militaries in their general geographic proximity; if it's such a big damn deal, then they can deal with it. 

Share this post


Link to post

Not debatable, in any way shape or form.

 

If any one country goes to war against the U.S., they lose. Badly.

 

Tell that to the boys still in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Tell that to the boys still in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc.

 

We destroyed the NVA in conventional engagement. 

 

No country can win a guerrilla war against another country on their home turf. It's basically impossible. Remember, we left because we were sick of it, not because we were "losing". 

Share this post


Link to post

Heads up, this thread will sadly be locked mid next week.

Like after Tuesday or on Election Day?

Share this post


Link to post

We destroyed the NVA in conventional engagement. 

 

No country can win a guerrilla war against another country on their home turf. It's basically impossible. Remember, we left because we were sick of it, not because we were "losing".

 

Still lost, brah. Your statement is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post

Still lost, brah. Your statement is incorrect.

 

It goes in the "L" column, but it's still not applicable to this context. 

Share this post


Link to post

Your military is several times stronger than it would need to be in order to defend itself against any invasion. The rest of the world combined couldn't invade the USA.

Our military projects power, it doesn't defend our borders. The reason no one will invade America is the hundreds of millions of firearms in the hands of the people. This is the key reason Soviet generals would dismiss any thought of any plans to invade America. No government is looking to get mired in a cement jungle war in our cities.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there are literally zero things I can think of that would justify randomly killing people, innocent or guilty, in the name of justice and security. 

 

And on the less extreme front, there is literally zero reason I can think of to ban all Muslims from entering this country, or to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico...or more importantly, to fan the flames of those who actually believe stupid shit like that. 

 

Er, that's not what I meant. 

 

Of course all leaders think that they are the best person for the job. But a dictator will do anything he wants and he/she will tell the people, "this is for the good of the country". So you can sit here and say, yeah Vladimir Putin is "doing it for Russia", but what he's doing is atrocious. 

Where is the campaign to bring down the wall on Mexico's southern border?

Share this post


Link to post

Where is the campaign to bring down the wall on Mexico's southern border?

 

I can be for strong border control and effective, efficient immigration policy without both inciting volatile racist sentiments and proposing a fuck'tarded (cuck'tarded?) thing like a physical wall that won't do shit and cost exorbitant amounts of money to construct, staff, and maintain. Or, maybe I could actually pay police officers/paramilitary what they're worth and bring order to turbulent areas. 

 

And before anyone even bothers, no it's not a metaphor. People are bought into the idea of a literal wall. 

Share this post


Link to post

I can be for strong border control and effective, efficient immigration policy without both inciting volatile racist sentiments and proposing a fuck'tarded (cuck'tarded?) thing like a physical wall that won't do shit and cost exorbitant amounts of money to construct, staff, and maintain. Or, maybe I could actually pay police officers/paramilitary what they're worth and bring order to turbulent areas. 

 

And before anyone even bothers, no it's not a metaphor. People are bought into the idea of a literal wall. 

Several countries have physical walls. They also have the least problems with illegal immigration. Just ask Mexico 

Share this post


Link to post

Several countries have physical walls. They also have the least problems with illegal immigration. Just ask Mexico 

 

Maybe because nobody wants to go to Mexico. 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe because nobody wants to go to Mexico. 

Several people living in countries south of Mexico would have a much better life living in Mexico. 

 

I can imagine the list of buzzwords that would have been posted if someone like Green had said something like you just did. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Several people living in countries south of Mexico would have a much better life living in Mexico.

"According to the 2010 National Census, there are 961,121 immigrants registered with the government as living in Mexico, the majority of whom are US citizens."

 

"Prior to May 2011, Mexico's immigration flows were regulated by the highly restrictive 1974 General Law of Population. However, on May 24, President Felipe Calderón signed into law a new and much more liberal Migration Law."

 

I can imagine the list of buzzwords that would have been posted if someone like Green had said something like you just did.

Yeah, he's such a victim.

Share this post


Link to post

"According to the 2010 National Census, there are 961,121 immigrants registered with the government as living in Mexico, the majority of whom are US citizens."

 

"Prior to May 2011, Mexico's immigration flows were regulated by the highly restrictive 1974 General Law of Population. However, on May 24, President Felipe Calderón signed into law a new and much more liberal Migration Law."

 

 

Yeah, he's such a victim.

But you just said that nobody wants to go to Mexico. 

I'm really not following your logic. We are talking about illegal immigration, then you say no one wants to go to Mexico, then you get me information on people legally living in Mexico. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.