Republicans Spit on the Constitution

[Publius1787]

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. .

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea.

How did the Iron Curtain and attempts at Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe work out?

The invasion of Poland was the flashpoint that caused the west to go all in on WWII.....How did Poland fare from 1945-1990, after being "liberated"?

You consider this a reply? Did I mention Poland? Did I mention WWII? I gave you a MODERN, post nuclear age, real senerio that is happening as we speak. You reply with the wrong time, wrong place, wring region, wrong country, a war that would never happen again in the nuclear age, and a question that has nothing to do with the previous post. If you need to apply the geopolitics of WWII to modern geopolitical problems to make your point then I am afraid that your even more ignorant than I originally thought.

A hot war with the Chinese? You really think that two nuclear powers will engage in a hot war? You really are stuck in WWII aren't you?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JS4VZbCWj8




.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, what about this senerio. .

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea.

How did the Iron Curtain and attempts at Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe work out?

The invasion of Poland was the flashpoint that caused the west to go all in on WWII.....How did Poland fare from 1945-1990, after being "liberated"?

You consider this a reply? Did I mention Poland? Did I mention WWII? I gave you a MODERN, post nuclear age, real senerio that is happening as we speak. You reply with the wrong time, wrong place, wring region, wrong country, a war that would never happen again in the nuclear age, and a question that has nothing to do with the previous post. If you need to apply the geopolitics of WWII to modern geopolitical problems to make your point then I am afraid that your even more ignorant than I originally thought you were.

Yeah....It's all soooooooo different now....The battle cry of the progressive do-gooder.....THIS time we'll get the meddling to come out the right way!

I pointed to Poland and WWII as a prime example of how you can get sucked into a hot war for certain reasons, that end up having no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate outcome of that war...Unintended consequences, spoils of war, and all that....The Allies came rushing in to Poland's defense, at the expense of trillions of dollars and scores of millions of lives on all sides, and they still ended up being the big loser anyways.

I'll never understand the blind narcissism of the international interventionist busybody do-gooder.

 

[Publius1787]

How did the Iron Curtain and attempts at Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe work out?

The invasion of Poland was the flashpoint that caused the west to go all in on WWII.....How did Poland fare from 1945-1990, after being "liberated"?

You consider this a reply? Did I mention Poland? Did I mention WWII? I gave you a MODERN, post nuclear age, real senerio that is happening as we speak. You reply with the wrong time, wrong place, wring region, wrong country, a war that would never happen again in the nuclear age, and a question that has nothing to do with the previous post. If you need to apply the geopolitics of WWII to modern geopolitical problems to make your point then I am afraid that your even more ignorant than I originally thought you were.

Yeah....It's all soooooooo different now....The battle cry of the progressive do-gooder.....THIS time we'll get the meddling to come out the right way!

I pointed to Poland and WWII as a prime example of how you can get sucked into a hot war for certain reasons, that end up having no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate outcome of that war...Unintended consequences, spoils of war, and all that....The Allies came rushing in to Poland's defense, at the expense of trillions of dollars and scores of millions of lives on all sides, and they still ended up being the big loser anyways.

I'll never understand the blind narcissism of the international interventionist busybody do-gooder.

A hot war between two nuclear powers? And are you ever going to respond to my sinerio? I'll post it again. Oh, and things ARE different. One of them being that both China and the US have nukes, and thus, as the only two major nuclear powers in the region were only one pullout away from a disaster. He who holds the nukes in the region makes the rules.

I don't know if you got the memo.....But the attempt at Soviet global hegemony was a towering fucking failure!....They created their enemies through their propping up of despotic tyrants and general dictatorial attitudes.

Your "who is going to fill the vacuum" game is for Wilsonian progressive do-gooder busybodies, who eventually end up getting their asses kicked and nations bankrupted.

You neocon twirps are no better internationally than are the liberoidal nannies domestically.

Get over yourself.

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly?

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. . http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JS4VZbCWj8

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far. (I see you did not)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who wants to go to war in the South China Sea and for what? Spent some time listening at the U to a guy this week in a post grad seminar talking about a strong isolationist barrier. Keep the Navy and AF strong as a shield, bring home our military assets, abandon ME oil to concentrate on our own energy reserves, while enticing Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela with "only favored" trade status. He seems to think that will boom our energy industry once again into a magnifier business that enriches the nation as a whole. The strength of his point is that it would eliminate flash points throughout the world for war.

That resolution above, as interesting as it is potentially, though, does not impact the cyber war going on now.

 

[Publius1787]

Who wants to go to war in the South China Sea and for what? Spent some time listening at the U to a guy this week in a post grad seminar talking about a strong isolationist barrier. Keep the Navy and AF strong as a shield, bring home our military assets, abandon ME oil to concentrate on our own energy reserves, while enticing Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela with "only favored" trade status. He seems to think that will boom our energy industry once again into a magnifier business that enriches the nation as a whole. The strength of his point is that it would eliminate flash points throughout the world for war.

That resolution above, as interesting as it is potentially, though, does not impact the cyber war going on now.

The only thing that will lead to large scale bloodshed in the SC Sea would be US withdrawal. Two nuclear powers aren't going to war.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who wants to go to war in the South China Sea and for what? Spent some time listening at the U to a guy this week in a post grad seminar talking about a strong isolationist barrier. Keep the Navy and AF strong as a shield, bring home our military assets, abandon ME oil to concentrate on our own energy reserves, while enticing Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela with "only favored" trade status. He seems to think that will boom our energy industry once again into a magnifier business that enriches the nation as a whole. The strength of his point is that it would eliminate flash points throughout the world for war.

That resolution above, as interesting as it is potentially, though, does not impact the cyber war going on now.

The only thing that will lead to large scale bloodshed in the SC Sea would be US withdrawal.

Not ours. And why should it?

 

[Publius1787]

Who wants to go to war in the South China Sea and for what? Spent some time listening at the U to a guy this week in a post grad seminar talking about a strong isolationist barrier. Keep the Navy and AF strong as a shield, bring home our military assets, abandon ME oil to concentrate on our own energy reserves, while enticing Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela with "only favored" trade status. He seems to think that will boom our energy industry once again into a magnifier business that enriches the nation as a whole. The strength of his point is that it would eliminate flash points throughout the world for war.

That resolution above, as interesting as it is potentially, though, does not impact the cyber war going on now.

The only thing that will lead to large scale bloodshed in the SC Sea would be US withdrawal.

Not ours. And why should it?

No not ours. And look up Chinese naval exploits against Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, of which they have used deadly force. And though it will not be our blood the price we would pay when China controlls 1/3rd of the worlds trade would be financially far greater than having a naval fleet hanging about.

 

[Oddball]

You consider this a reply? Did I mention Poland? Did I mention WWII? I gave you a MODERN, post nuclear age, real senerio that is happening as we speak. You reply with the wrong time, wrong place, wring region, wrong country, a war that would never happen again in the nuclear age, and a question that has nothing to do with the previous post. If you need to apply the geopolitics of WWII to modern geopolitical problems to make your point then I am afraid that your even more ignorant than I originally thought you were.

Yeah....It's all soooooooo different now....The battle cry of the progressive do-gooder.....THIS time we'll get the meddling to come out the right way!

I pointed to Poland and WWII as a prime example of how you can get sucked into a hot war for certain reasons, that end up having no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate outcome of that war...Unintended consequences, spoils of war, and all that....The Allies came rushing in to Poland's defense, at the expense of trillions of dollars and scores of millions of lives on all sides, and they still ended up being the big loser anyways.

I'll never understand the blind narcissism of the international interventionist busybody do-gooder.

A hot war between two nuclear powers? And are you ever going to respond to my sinerio? I'll post it again. Oh, and things ARE different. One of them being that both China and the US have nukes, and thus, as the only two major nuclear powers in the region were only one pullout away from a disaster. He who holds the nukes in the region makes the rules.

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly?

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. . Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far. (I see you did not)

What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only thing that will lead to large scale bloodshed in the SC Sea would be US withdrawal.

Not ours. And why should it?

No not ours. And look up Chinese naval exploits against Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines, of which they have used deadly force. And though it will not be our blood the price we would pay when China controlls 1/3rd of the worlds trade would be financially far greater than having a naval fleet hanging about.

The 21st century has arrived and the levers of power are not the same as the pre 1950s.

China is a coming power, but that will not endanger the USA in any way militarily or economically.

 

[Publius1787]

Yeah....It's all soooooooo different now....The battle cry of the progressive do-gooder.....THIS time we'll get the meddling to come out the right way!

I pointed to Poland and WWII as a prime example of how you can get sucked into a hot war for certain reasons, that end up having no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate outcome of that war...Unintended consequences, spoils of war, and all that....The Allies came rushing in to Poland's defense, at the expense of trillions of dollars and scores of millions of lives on all sides, and they still ended up being the big loser anyways.

I'll never understand the blind narcissism of the international interventionist busybody do-gooder.

A hot war between two nuclear powers? And are you ever going to respond to my sinerio? I'll post it again. Oh, and things ARE different. One of them being that both China and the US have nukes, and thus, as the only two major nuclear powers in the region were only one pullout away from a disaster. He who holds the nukes in the region makes the rules.

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. . Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far. (I see you did not)

What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the resident military and technological power in the region and they will use it now as they have before in sour absence.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious. China is wageing economic warfare, much at its own people's expense. Welcome to the 21st century battlefield. Less death, but a threat nonetheless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A hot war between two nuclear powers? And are you ever going to respond to my sinerio? I'll post it again. Oh, and things ARE different. One of them being that both China and the US have nukes, and thus, as the only two major nuclear powers in the region were only one pullout away from a disaster. He who holds the nukes in the region makes the rules.

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.

Ok, what about this senerio. . Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far. (I see you did not)

What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

We will continue to do business in SE Asia. How will China or anyone else force us out? Militarily? Not a chance.

No neo-cons, not now, not ever.

 

[Oddball]

A hot war between two nuclear powers? And are you ever going to respond to my sinerio? I'll post it again. Oh, and things ARE different. One of them being that both China and the US have nukes, and thus, as the only two major nuclear powers in the region were only one pullout away from a disaster. He who holds the nukes in the region makes the rules.

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.

Ok, what about this senerio. . Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far. (I see you did not)

What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

I've contradicted nothing.

Having a military fleet hanging around is of no particular value, unless you're dealing with pirates....Pirates don't normally fly the flag of any legitimate nation....They're fucking pirates, ferchrisakes.

As for our allies...Let them make their own peace with the Chinese.....Quit pretending that the whole fucking world is America's bastard stepchild, desperately in need of our benevolent military patronage.

 

[Publius1787]

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.



What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

We will continue to do business in SE Asia. How will China or anyone else force us out? Militarily? Not a chance.

No neo-cons, not now, not ever.

Sure, it's just that doing business without our naval forces preventing China from pursuing the entire SC Sea will be more costly than the naval fleet were paying to stay there. 1/3rd the worlds trade, remember that. You want to militarily pull us out of the South China Sea? Prepare to encur costs that far exceed the military you just pulled.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

We will continue to do business in SE Asia. How will China or anyone else force us out? Militarily? Not a chance.

No neo-cons, not now, not ever.

Sure, it's just that doing business without our naval forces preventing China from pursuing the entire SC Sea will be more costly than the naval fleet were paying to stay there. 1/3rd the worlds trade, remember that.

And China would forsake our trade to control the SC Sea? That is what you are saying, and that is nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

All 134 must be primaried out of office -- every one. I cannot imagine a clearer, brighter line than the one that protects citizens from a Tyrannical government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Now is the time

House passes defense spending bill, rejects effort to cut off NSA surveillance program | Fox News

That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'm sure Democrats will be happy to help you out.

The GOP is going to ‘primary’ itself in the irrelevance, if it hasn’t already.

 

[Publius1787]

There will be no war, let alone one involving nukes.

The 1950s are over...Time to move on and grow up.



What's China's outcome?...What are they supposed to get out of the deal?

Do they expect any better results intervening in the South Pacific than America has achieved meddling in the Middle East?...Any better results than the Soviets got in Georgia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and all of eastern Europe?

Do you Wilsonian international military interventionists ever stop wetting the bed?

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

I've contradicted nothing.

Having a military fleet hanging around is of no particular value, unless you're dealing with pirates....Pirates don't normally fly the flag of any legitimate nation....They're fucking pirates, ferchrisakes.

As for our allies...Let them make their own peace with the Chinese.....Quit pretending that the whole fucking world is America's bastard stepchild, desperately in need of our benevolent military patronage.

Enjoy
Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube
Vietnamese ship got intercepted in South China Sea - YouTube
China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988] - YouTube
PHILIPPINES, JAPAN STRENGTHEN MARITIME COOPERATION Two Island Nation to attack China - YouTube
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=EjCQnFhXNak

 

[Oddball]

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

We will continue to do business in SE Asia. How will China or anyone else force us out? Militarily? Not a chance.

No neo-cons, not now, not ever.

Sure, it's just that doing business without our naval forces preventing China from pursuing the entire SC Sea will be more costly than the naval fleet were paying to stay there. 1/3rd the worlds trade, remember that. You want to militarily pull us out of the South China Sea? Prepare to encur costs that far exceed the military you just pulled.

Frank Burns...Is that you?

 

[Oddball]

You just contradicted yourself, specifically with your "hot war with China comment." Indeed, there will be no nuclear war whether it is between two nuclear powers or China and other Asian players. The point is that China is the military and technological power in the region.

So we pull out of SE Asia huh? Will that cost us more or less in the market place than simply having a naval fleet hanging about? What about our allies? Is that a step closer towrd free markets and peacful trade or away? The answer is obvious.

I've contradicted nothing.

Having a military fleet hanging around is of no particular value, unless you're dealing with pirates....Pirates don't normally fly the flag of any legitimate nation....They're fucking pirates, ferchrisakes.

As for our allies...Let them make their own peace with the Chinese.....Quit pretending that the whole fucking world is America's bastard stepchild, desperately in need of our benevolent military patronage.

Enjoy
Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube
Vietnamese ship got intercepted in South China Sea - YouTube
China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988] - YouTube
PHILIPPINES, JAPAN STRENGTHEN MARITIME COOPERATION Two Island Nation to attack China - YouTube

Let those nations throw off Chinese aggression.

They're not our bastard stepchildren.

 

[Publius1787]

We will continue to do business in SE Asia. How will China or anyone else force us out? Militarily? Not a chance.

No neo-cons, not now, not ever.

Sure, it's just that doing business without our naval forces preventing China from pursuing the entire SC Sea will be more costly than the naval fleet were paying to stay there. 1/3rd the worlds trade, remember that.

And China would forsake our trade to control the SC Sea? That is what you are saying, and that is nonsense.

You think we're in a position to reject trade from China? Who's goods does our poor and middle class shop for when they go to Walmart? You think the American poor and middle class can afford American made goods? Stop trade with China? Good luck.

 

[Publius1787]

I've contradicted nothing.

Having a military fleet hanging around is of no particular value, unless you're dealing with pirates....Pirates don't normally fly the flag of any legitimate nation....They're fucking pirates, ferchrisakes.

As for our allies...Let them make their own peace with the Chinese.....Quit pretending that the whole fucking world is America's bastard stepchild, desperately in need of our benevolent military patronage.

Enjoy
Videographic: China's territorial claims - YouTube
Vietnamese ship got intercepted in South China Sea - YouTube
China´s massacre in Spratly islands [real footage 1988] - YouTube
PHILIPPINES, JAPAN STRENGTHEN MARITIME COOPERATION Two Island Nation to attack China - YouTube

Let those nations throw off Chinese aggression.

They're not our bastard stepchildren.

I could take the importants of each of these nations to the US one by one but I would be writing a book in the process. Thus, I will ignore the above. Indeed, we have a world economy and the only thing preventing China from taking over their fishing waters and off shore natural resources is our naval fleets. Good luck trading goods with those countries when you allow the Chinese to hack off a good chunk of their economy. Note that goods from these three countries are already more expensive than that of the Chinese. Also note that they cannot stand up to the Chinese in a military confrontation, save Japan.