Trump has gone insane

[vision63]

Our primary purpose in Europe (arguably) isn't to defend them as much as it is to have an intimidating presence that represents "our" interests in Europe. Extrapolate that to the rest of the world, then you can understand our true doctrine. We could always just leave these places instead of bitchin' about how much it costs.

[Chakravartin]

rjmacs wrote:
Frank says that the legacy of America's military presence in Europe has caused the world to expect the U.S. to provide for Europe's defense, despite the fact that the E.U. has more people and a larger common GDP than the U.S. He supports multilateralism, but thinks that other countries should contribute more to their own defense, and not depend on America's military...

Interesting stats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...eployments

...

Outside of banking, the military-industrial complex is where all of the money is at. It keeps a very big chunk of our population employed.

Do you really want to take that system down a notch in the present economy?

Let's reduce our military presence during one of the 20 year lulls we occasionally have between wars.

[Acer]

Is there value in "Pax Americana," as a relatively benign strongman maintaining a presence around the world to promote stability? If so, then mass withdrawal can be more damaging in the long run than it may look today in a budget battle. The next question is how much is enough. And the trade-off is that it's hard for presidents to keep their hands off it to send it on dubious adventures, witness LBJ or Bush II, or even Reagan in Grenada, though it seems that conventional wisdom says Bush I used it properly.

[rjmacs]

Chakravartin wrote:
Let's reduce our military presence during one of the 20 year lulls we occasionally have between wars.

When have we had a 20 year lull between wars, since 1942? Even if you exclude Grenada and Panama, the closest you can get in recent history is 16 years between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Before World War 1, you have to go back to the end of the Civil War (and the tail end of the Indian Wars) to find another 20 year lull. Twice in the last 150 years seems more rare than occasional to me.

[Chakravartin]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Chakravartin]
Let's reduce our military presence during one of the 20 year lulls we occasionally have between wars.

When have we had a 20 year lull between wars...
1918-1939.

[Acer]

Perhaps the meaningful interval is 20 years between "necessary" wars?

[Chakravartin]

Acer wrote:
Perhaps the meaningful interval is 20 years between "necessary" wars?

(Emphasis added.)

Let's not open that can of worms. M'kay?

[Mac1337]

john dough wrote:
Dakota giving no proof, only his opinion of what he thinks happened?? A SHOCKER!

No one takes you seriously because you are an idiot.

Did you read the above exchanges? My bringing in the very relevant comments by Frank incited a very thoughtful exchange. Stop making a fool of yourself by following me around making stupid repeats posts.

[Mac1337]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Chakravartin]
Let's reduce our military presence during one of the 20 year lulls we occasionally have between wars.

When have we had a 20 year lull between wars, since 1942? Even if you exclude Grenada and Panama, the closest you can get in recent history is 16 years between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Before World War 1, you have to go back to the end of the Civil War (and the tail end of the Indian Wars) to find another 20 year lull. Twice in the last 150 years seems more rare than occasional to me.
There is one sure way to put distance between wars. How about not starting one?

[rjmacs]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Chakravartin]
Let's reduce our military presence during one of the 20 year lulls we occasionally have between wars.

When have we had a 20 year lull between wars, since 1942? Even if you exclude Grenada and Panama, the closest you can get in recent history is 16 years between Vietnam and the first Gulf War. Before World War 1, you have to go back to the end of the Civil War (and the tail end of the Indian Wars) to find another 20 year lull. Twice in the last 150 years seems more rare than occasional to me.
There is one sure way to put distance between wars. How about not starting one?
I concur! I particularly wish we'd reached the 20th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war, and subsequently, the 20th anniversary of the first Gulf War without returning to the battlefield.