Looking on the bright side, it does force real cuts in government spending, although they are across the board in which case Defense will take a big hit.
Let’s face it, our government is corrupt to the max, and that includes both parties. We have not had a decent President since Ronald Reagan. Both Bushes were disasters. The first got us into a war in Iraq to overthrow a tyrant dictator in order to support an Arab monarchy. That dictator was at least maintaining control of the Muslim groups in Iraq.
Then we have Bush Light who proceeds to go into Iraq supposedly because of weapons of mass destruction but likely because Saddam Hussein had attempted to kill his father. Look at the mess in Iraq today and consider how many American military were killed and wounded and at the huge financial cost to the US.
Then Bush Light puts us in Afghanistan supposedly to get Bin Laden. Instead, we get involved in a major military action that has cost many American lives and injuries, again at a huge financial cost and accomplished nothing other than support a corrupt government.
Further, we have Bush Light spending money we did not have by buying into nearly every spending program the Dem controlled Congress passed.
As to Clinton, he benefited from having a Republican Congress for part of the time which somewhat helped to limit spending, but he did nothing when the World Trade Center garage was bombed, thus making it a target for Bin Laden several years later.
And now we have the biggest fraud of all in the WH, and Americans were dumb enough to put him back there for another four years.
So, bring on the so-called fiscal cliff. The sooner this country is forced back to reality, the better.
We didn't overthrow a dictator in GWI. Hussain invaded Kuwait and the Saudi oil fields and a coalition of countries put him back in his box. Bush I did it right. Bush II performed a preemptive invasion and should have left enough alone.
>>Looking on the bright side, it does force real cuts in government spending, although they are across the board in which case Defense will take a big hit.
The rest of your post is a pretty good argument for that not being such a big deal.
Plus Obama won’t use the military to stop either N Korea or Iran from getting nukes, both of which could conceivably threaten the US mainline with them. For that matter, a GOP president probably wouldn’t either.
And these days it takes years of pissing around in the UN before possibly getting some kind of resolution that’ll offer cover to any country that wants to use it’s military - except perhaps Russia which is one of the few that seem to be actually ready, willing and able to advance its own agenda regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.
mainline s/b mainland.
Actually, I supported us going into Afganiscrap after 9/11/2001. The Taliban were enabling al-Queda. It's a fact. Our troops and operatives have pretty much devastated their abilities. However, Afganiscrap will never become a free enterprising nation because of their tribal conflicts. We will continue to lose young Americans if we stay there.
Although I and much of the World bought into the threat of WMD under Saddam Hussein and waged war on Iraq, that was a waste of our childrens' lives and limbs, also.
Now we have Libya, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, all the rest of the so-called "Arab Spring" to deal with. Muslims know nothing more than to kill all who are not Muslims, and if they can't, they kill each other. They hate the Western world, and just plain hate. It's like if Catholics were to war on Protestants. Uh, right, they have. I hate religions!
However, I will give the various Christian and Jewish denominations a pass nowadays since they eventually learned to live with each other under the umbrella of "liberty". Most (my belief) Muslims can't comprehend freedom nor opportunity. They are about their crappy religion/cult and are taught that sh*t from childhood (proven). I can't understand why Europe and now the USA accepts those cultists into Western society.
Oh yeah, we have to be PC and "feel" for others.
I have been saying this for years:
I am not a racist, but I am a culturalist (my own term). The color of skin is not what's important; the nature of those of certain cultures is.
I've been thinking what a great thesis for a college Master's could be about how different races have different cultures that are either beneficial to humankind or detrimental. Think about the difference between Islamist cultures and the Indians in the Amazon, or ANY western civilization.
The pagan Amazon tribes don't kill their women if they are raped, as far as I know. Yet, so many Islamists will lash or stone or hang or shoot their own women for some obscene sense of honor if they are raped or do something against the sensibilities of Muslim men. It's time someone who is more informed and articulate than me to write such a thesis.
Yes, I know, there are books out there, no one reads them. However, I would like to see the "backfire" from a student in a major Ivy university write such. The MSM would go ballistic, and open the conversation about cultural (not race) differences. That's a discussion we need.