Which candidate best matches your stance on the issues?

[Johnny Tremain]

I guess it depends on what is meant by offensive force. We have forces stationed all over the world. That is offensive. Would you like it if a huge powerful foreign military force was stationed in your country or cruising off shore?

A defensive force means it defends it's homeland. We do not have that now. Our homeland is in many ways unprotected. Our borders are wide open allowing anyone and anything to enter. Our immigration policy allows persons from enemy nations to enter, while the fascist TSA pats down grandmas and babies.

I did not say we ignore China. I do not see them as an historic enemy.

I think China is an historic enemy--see the Korean War.
They sent armies and pilots as did the Russians. The based forces within China for cross-border attacks.
China--at it's political core--seeks world supremacy more than the islamic maniacs.
Whom they--by the way, DESPISE.
And--they are willing to wait for others to weaken and slowly sneak in.
Once they are in--they will N-E-V-E-R leave.
They will have the world's most powerful economy at any time--imminent.
Perhaps already--hard to gauge their economy.

We have had forces around the world since the end of WW2--because those countries wanted and needed us there to re-build.
They had us protect them, without much appreciation, frankly.
It's true--that time is gone, but the Germans are not screaming to have us leave--and have not for decades.
Those nations save billions and billions by having US protect them, I do not support this.
They also like the economic boom American dollars bring.
It has always been a symbiosis to both parties.

 

[Gipper]

I think China is an historic enemy--see the Korean War.
They sent armies and pilots as did the Russians. The based forces within China for cross-border attacks.
China--at it's political core--seeks world supremacy more than the islamic maniacs.
Whom they--by the way, DESPISE.
And--they are willing to wait for others to weaken and slowly sneak in.
Once they are in--they will N-E-V-E-R leave.
They will have the world's most powerful economy at any time--imminent.
Perhaps already--hard to gauge their economy.

We have had forces around the world since the end of WW2--because those countries wanted and needed us there to re-build.
They had us protect them, without much appreciation, frankly.
It's true--that time is gone, but the Germans are not screaming to have us leave--and have not for decades.
Those nations save billions and billions by having US protect them, I do not support this.
They also like the economic boom American dollars bring.
It has always been a symbiosis to both parties.

Because we fought them in the Korean War they are historic enemies? I suppose you can say that, but does it mean they are enemies now? Germany and Japan historic enemies, but they are allies now.

Does this mean we need to keep military forces on China's borders/shores in perpetuity? And then threaten them or intervene in their affairs? I think not.

China's economy is a bubble economy even worst than ours. They are about to crash as are we. I do not believe this propaganda that China with its corrupt government, again even worse than ours, will be the world's leading economy. But if it is, so what? Does that mean we must go to war with them?

Does China have significant ground troops near our borders, like we do theirs? Does China have huge naval forces cruising off our shores, like we do theirs?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Because we fought them in the Korean War they are historic enemies? I suppose you can say that, but does it mean they are enemies now? Germany and Japan historic enemies, but they are allies now.

Does this mean we need to keep military forces on China's borders/shores in perpetuity? And then threaten them or intervene in their affairs? I think not.

China's economy is a bubble economy even worst than ours. They are about to crash as are we. I do not believe this propaganda that China with its corrupt government, again even worse than ours, will be the world's leading economy. But if it is, so what? Does that mean we must go to war with them?

Does China have significant ground troops near our borders, like we do theirs? Does China have huge naval forces cruising off our shores, like we do theirs?

China can field an army of around 5,000,000 should they wish to--and all they need to do is move them.
And probably 20,000,000 more if action were to break out that threatened them
They are well-armed.
They are just across the Pacific--and they are working hard to build the world's largest Navy--and they will succeed.

And their missiles are just across the pond--as are ours.
They could easily survive a murderous strike.
1,300,000.000 -vs- 310,000,000, is BAD odds--no matter how you cut it.
All is long range, decades into the future.
It is your children and grandchildren--who will reap the harvest.

 

[Cruella]

Agreed. The downside with Romney is his complete support of the military industrial complex. He also is a big government progressive. All that said, he should do a better job with the economy than Big Ears. Problem is it likely won't matter, as our nation heads over the cliff and into a full blown depression.

you mean like all the wars Reagan started by building up the military?

 

[Gipper]

you mean like all the wars Reagan started by building up the military?

Not the same thing. We were dealing with a very strong nuclear power with imperialist objectives, while pushing the heinous ideology known to man. Plus our nation was not on the verge of bankruptcy when Reagan was president.

 

[PLC1]

Not the same thing. We were dealing with a very strong nuclear power with imperialist objectives, while pushing the heinous ideology known to man. Plus our nation was not on the verge of bankruptcy when Reagan was president.

Yes, we were. The Soviet Union was a threat to liberty and even to modern civilization, was a strong nation, had at least as many nukes as we had. We defeated it in the cold war 21 years ago, and yet, we still have some wanting to continue fighting.

We won! It was our victory! and, if the right wingers want to credit Reagan for the victory, so be it, but let's move on. The cold war is over.

 

[Cruella]

Not the same thing. We were dealing with a very strong nuclear power with imperialist objectives, while pushing the heinous ideology known to man. Plus our nation was not on the verge of bankruptcy when Reagan was president.

I don't see a difference. Gutting the military will have a huge effect on our economy. More people out of work and on unemployment and welfare, not to mention all the smaller auxiliary businesses going bankrupt.

 

[Gipper]

I don't see a difference. Gutting the military will have a huge effect on our economy. More people out of work and on unemployment and welfare, not to mention all the smaller auxiliary businesses going bankrupt.

No one is proposing gutting the military, not even the skinny socialist. The US defense budget is huge and has grown significantly under Bush and Big Ears. Cuts need to be made now. Bringing all our forces home would be a good start.

Keeping a huge military for the purpose of employing people, is not the American way and nonsensical. To say nothing of the wastefulness and corruption, that infects the military-industrial-government complex.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Not the same thing. We were dealing with a very strong nuclear power with imperialist objectives, while pushing the heinous ideology known to man. Plus our nation was not on the verge of bankruptcy when Reagan was president.

The USSR was about one-tenth as dangerous as middle eastern countries with nuclear weapons.

 

[PLC1]

The USSR was about one-tenth as dangerous as middle eastern countries with nuclear weapons.

No Middle Eastern country has an arsenal that is at all comparable to that of the former Soviet Union.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

No Middle Eastern country (except for Israel) has an arsenal that is at all comparable to that of the former Soviet Union.

True. And incredibly naive.
Now.
But--what about in a few years?
Money is no object.
It does not take many to constitute a huge threat.
Pakistan is there, already.
They would spread what they have to another islamic country at the drop of a hat.

If you wait for threats to materialize--you are DEAD.
The threat is real--it is there.
The rest of the world knows this.

I expect a nuke of some sort will be set off in an American port city within the next ten years--or five.
Unless strong measures are taken.
Think about that. New York. Los Angeles.
Best be ready for that.

Obama seeks to eliminate our nuclear deterrent--in the name of his true loyalty.

 

[PLC1]

True. And incredibly naive.
Now.
But--what about in a few years?
Money is no object.
It does not take many to constitute a huge threat.
Pakistan is there, already.
They would spread what they have to another islamic country at the drop of a hat.

If you wait for threats to materialize--you are DEAD.
The threat is real--it is there.
The rest of the world knows this.

I expect a nuke of some sort will be set off in an American port city within the next ten years--or five.
Unless strong measures are taken.
Think about that. New York. Los Angeles.
Best be ready for that.

Obama seeks to eliminate our nuclear deterrent--in the name of his true loyalty.

Every president since and including Reagan dreamed of nuclear disarmament, and all of them understood that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous idea. Obama is not going to "eliminate our nuclear deterrent", nor does he have any plans to try.

Meanwhile, the third world cesspools that make up the Mid East countries will never be as powerful as the Soviet Union was. The worst fear of nukes in places like Pakistan is that they could fall into the hands of Islamic nutters who would use them for a terrorist attack. Now, that is a real threat, one to be taken seriously, but not one that can be countered with nuclear missiles. It takes intelligence, which is something sorely lacking in the so called "war on terror."

 

[Centrehalf]

It's highly doubtful that a nuke is going to go off here, and the further into the future we project the less likely it is.

We also do not lack intelligence in the war on terror, what we do currently lack is political will.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Every president since and including Reagan dreamed of nuclear disarmament, and all of them understood that unilateral disarmament was a dangerous idea. Obama is not going to "eliminate our nuclear deterrent", nor does he have any plans to try.

Meanwhile, the third world cesspools that make up the Mid East countries will never be as powerful as the Soviet Union was. The worst fear of nukes in places like Pakistan is that they could fall into the hands of Islamic nutters who would use them for a terrorist attack. Now, that is a real threat, one to be taken seriously, but not one that can be countered with nuclear missiles. It takes intelligence, which is something sorely lacking in the so called "war on terror."

The real danger of all nuclear weaponry--since the mid-1940's--has been lunatic despots.
The USSR--after a horrific experience in WW2 and China developed them to protect their homelands.
It is only now--that the spectre of those who wish to "take over the world" are beginning to play the game.
Iran is the first domino. Run by the most severe religious fanatics in all of human history.

Best squash it flat--or it will cause you unacceptable damage and then you will have to squash them just the same.
Depends on how much collateral damage you are willing to accept in a whimsical Neville Chamberlain dither.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

It's highly doubtful that a nuke is going to go off here, and the further into the future we project the less likely it is.

We also do not lack intelligence in the war on terror, what we do currently lack is political will.

Ports are incalculably vulnerable.

A shipboard smuggled 20-KT device (peanuts in this game--but easy for small powers)--Nagasaki-size--would flatten the whole of Manhattan Island--or the Los Angeles Basin. That is their dream and their goal. Always has been.

And--who would you strike in retaliation?