SchoonerPete

Excellent! Old Brian has a short memory, and doesn't research anything.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Btfkr Loc: just outside the Mile High City

Thanks for posting. I was beginning to think I'd been given incorrect directions and accidentally stumbled into a meeting of the good ol' boy club...KKK???

Hungry Freaks

Repeat:

We spend more on our military than the next 12 nations combined, including China and russia. that's a simple fact.

Russia is surrounded by former client states that are, in many cases, hostile to the former Mother Country. Russia now has one region with access to the Atlantic-and that's above the Arctic Circle. The government has trouble paying ANY salary to many of it's soldiers and sailors.

China is a different story. Their technology still lags and their armed services are ill-trained and have poor discipline, but their trying. Without a doubt China will trying and be the major influence militarily and economically in Asia. We're going to have to form the same alliances we did to counter Soviet power in Europe. We can't finance a defense of Asia by ourselves-growing economies of Asia, Japan and India are going to have to pony up. Japan already is.

Besides, China is investing in domestic infrastructure much like the US did during the 1950s and 1960s when it invested in the Interstate Highway system. Remember, that was Ike Eisenhower''s baby, born out of his attempts in the 1920s to travel coast-tocoast in a military convoy.

Investment in defense doesn't always mean fighters, bombers and other weapons systems.

There is the possibility that the next war might be fought without ever firing a shot. Our electric and communications infrastructure is such that hacking could be the main weapon of the next war. Are we doing enough to protect that network from enemies and natural disasters?

But the generals usually fight using technology of the last war. Meaning that we're probably not doing enough to protect against the real threats. And that doesn't include the threat posed from solar radiation.

We have enough jet fighters and bombers-even our 70's vintage aircraft is superior to most of what Russia and China has. A huge land army will probably not be needed should we go to war with China or Russia.

Besides, the concept of what war is has changed so much since WWII. Big land and naval battles are a thing of the past. the Cold War paradigm of low-intensity proxy conflicts may even be dated.

I'm not sure what they're doing in the DOD but they are constantly investigating what types of conflict the future might hold. I'm sure they have a better handle than you or me on what may be the future of warfare.

Calling me an ignorant fool isn't a response-it's an insult. Try stating why you think I'm wrong in some detail rather than insulting me. Saying that Putin has evil intent isn't enough. He may be trying to rebuilt his military, but he's finding the money to do so scare. Right now, Putin has his hands full trying to keep his southern fleet in Ukrainian waters.

I could easily throw a few insults your way but I'd rather discuss things civilly. But, as I've shown in my responses to those who refuse to do so, I can go dirty for dirty. It's your choice.

vernon

just what is so wrong about the things you mention.its time when we put our guys into a war it should be a total war.this thing we do now is nothing but a way toget our kids killed and not accomplish anything

Hungry Freaks

combat troops were indeed first sent to Vietnam during the presidency of a Democrat.

But Iraq and Afghanistan? Up until the late 1980s, we were tacit allies with Iraq, supporting them as a counterweight to Iran. President George HW Bush was the first to start hostilities with Iraq.

And George W Bush was the first to commit combat troops to Afghanistan. There was s surge in recent years under a Democrat, but the war started with a Republican.

but political party has little difference when it comes to foreign military misadventures. Both parties believe in an interventionalist foreign policy in which we reserve the rights to invade any country at will. It is a wasteful, expensive policy that has backfired on us time and time again.

Did Southeast Asia fall to communism like dominos as Republicans and Democrats alike claimed?

Did our intervention in Iraq bring stability to that country or the region?

Afghanistan has ben invaded by Russia twice and England three times (or is it Russia three times and England twice?) Is there any chance our fighting there will result in any orderly, peaceful society for the Afghan people?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is more to my liking.

vernon

just what caused the war in afghanistan?it would have been because they killed 3000 in the twin towers.just what would you have done?
as far as iraq they had stability until obama cut and run.

Hungry Freaks

The Status of Forces agreement setting the timetable for withdraw from Iraq was signed in 2008 by George W. Bush. The ceremony of the signing was memorable because an Iraqi journalist threw a shoe at Bush. Perhaps you remember. Bush remarked "a size 10" (what do you say when someone throws a shoe at you?)

Obama only carried out the Status of Forces Agreement signed by his predecessor. He could have ignored the agreement, but the Iraqi government demanded that US troops be subject to Iraqi courts, something neither Bush nor Obama would have, or could have, allowed.

Afghanistan did harbor OBL. There, instead of Iraq, is where we should have sent our troops in 2001 to rid the country of the Taliban. Instead, we shorted the troop levels in Afghanistan until the surge of 2009-10.

But that still doesn't mean ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban will make it a stable country. Our military misadventures usually result in more, not less, problems for any particular region.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Yes I did post regarding biblical scriputres about homosexuality; with chapter and verse. Tolerance does not change the laws that was given to us. I have no hatred for these people, but I do not.....let me repeat, I do not condone nor would I be supportive of that life style. Having said that, I do have gay people in my circle of friends. They are welcome in my home for they are intelligent and we have other things in common. Several have spent the night in my guest rooms. I would not have them escorted into the same bedroom or bed because that would be supporting a life choice that is contradictory to my religion and personal standards. They are aware of this, and they have respect for my feeling and my home. They know, if they should decide to have a formal "union" ceremony, I would not attend nor purchase "wedding" gifts. If you consider this intolerant, then it is something that you will need to deal with.

Tolerance is wonderful, but I have found that many people that say they are, well they are intolerant to people who do not or can not alter their standards or belief system to the more politically correct definition of the word. Respect and tolerance is a two way street. Liberals seem to have a problem with this concept. They often will champion a cause because they think they will more easily fit in with others; gain friends. But, then one must ask themselves, if an action were offensive to your mother/father/grandfather.....pick a relative that you respect, and you performed said action in their home with all your friends around....are you being disrespectful to your relative? Then how could you possibly support an activity that is offensive to your creator, your Father, your God? Perhaps you do not believe in God, then to you any action would have to be weighed by your standards alone. Again, this is something that each person must figure out for themselves.

Now to address your objection to the word "faggot." Words are hurtful at times, they can bring great joy, make one feel comforted in times of sorrow, and can be a knife that cuts to the bone. But, one must examine the reason they find the term or word offensive. Of course you have a right to be offended by abrasive terms. And you have an obligation to let the person who used the term know, else you suffer without need. Once you speak to the person, and they continue to use the term, then you need to decide if you wish to continue to subject yourself to such conversations. You would then need to understand that not everyone will change or conform to your standards. If it is indeed too offensive for you to tolerate, then walk away from the person. And when on line, you can make the choice of fighting an unending battle to correct another, or simply ignore their comments or simply move to a different thread. This in no way says you are weak or that you condone or endorse the opinion or words of another, it does send the message that a behavior, a term, or association is unacceptable to you. Truly, most people on this forum (again, notice the word MOST) are not your friend, they are here to express their opinions, perhaps educate, and at minimum for self gratification to ease their loneliness. So it boils down to you making the best decision for yourself that does not offend your sensibilities.

The Dutchman

Searching, I have never gone off on the queers in here till they go off on their filthy rants airing there morbid, immoral lifestyle directing it in my direction. I really wish they were all incarcerate in some mental institution far away from the public.
I lost a grand daughter at 3 years of age due to an aids infection she contracted from a blood transfusion during a surgery. I hold all these aids transmitting parasites and the sick perverts that support them personally responsible.
This used to be a good political forum but it has turned into place for the queers to air their insanity. They always try to turn any topic they can't understand or dispute into one of their filthy immoral rants.
This 1PP is advertised on the internet as a political forum but the queers in here don't understand it.....
I sincerely hope that all of them and those that support this filthy crap die of some aids related cause...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I am so sorry for your loss. At 3 years of age, with hopes and expectations that will never be realized. How very heartbreaking for you! I can not being to imagine the pain you must feel from that loss.

The Dutchman

Welcome aboard Joseph, It's great to hear from someone not brain washed by the obozo's crap. He's nothing but a mouth piece for his puppet masters that want nothing more than to turn this country into a socialistic form of crumbling deterioration.
The obozo and his handlers can't stand the fact that in America there are people with the ability to fend for themselves.......

The Dutchman

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
And as did the clintoon!!

vernon

remember aids cures homosexuality