Well, those in the military who were afraid they would be out of work after we leave Iraq and Afghanistan will be relieved to know that we are going to increase our presence in that region.
QuotePresident Barack Obama traveled to Indonesia on Thursday after spending two days in Australia, where he declared that the United States will increase its military presence and expand its role in shaping the Asia Pacific region.
"Our enduring interests in the region demand our enduring presence in this region," Obama told the Australian Parliament. "The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay."
He announced an agreement with Australia on Wednesday that will expand military cooperation between the longtime allies and boost America's presence in the region.
In a speech a day later, Obama made it clear that the military expansion is a top priority in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, even as the United States faces the need to reduce mounting federal deficits and debt.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/asia/australia-obama-trip/
Seems somewhat contrary when even conservatives are calling for less military spending. This certainly can't play well with his liberal base. I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to get himself voted out of office or if he seriously has Asperger's.
Oh please, what 250 soldiers? Lots of risk down under?
Give me a break you partisan hack ;)
Aspergers? seriously?
I think it's a good idea to send soldiers to Asia. That is Asia, right?
I have some friends in the service that really really want this assignment!
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 17, 2011, 01:09:49 PM
Oh please, what 250 soldiers? Lots of risk down under?
Give me a break you partisan hack ;)
Aspergers? seriously?
Eventually ramping up to 2500, just in Australia. I'm pretty certain there will be announcements of more troops sent to SoKo and improvements to the base in Okinawa.
I've got a better idea, why doesn't Australia send 2500 of their troops instead to monitor our southern border. I'm tired of the U.S. being the world's police force.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 12:59:09 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if he's trying to get himself voted out of office or if he seriously has Asperger's.
That's not even close to Aspergers. He could never be an engineer or any other highly technical type person.
Voted out of office would be my guess.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 02:27:42 PM
That's not even close to Aspergers. He could never be an engineer or any other highly technical type person.
That's true, there's strong evidence to suggest he's not very high functioning in the intellect department. But he is a great reader.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
That's true, there's strong evidence to suggest he's not very high functioning in the intellect department. But he is a great reader.
I think he's smart. He had great professors at Columbia.
(http://quitenormal.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/frances-fox-piven.jpg?w=180&h=167)
I have infrequent correspondence with a guy in Australia. He said the prices of nearly all consumer goods and groceries are increasing as the Chinese buy up whatever is available. The relative strength of the Chinese military would make it very possible for them to seize it rather than buy it. Don't rule out India either, as it needs raw materials for its expanding economy.
Quote from: Ed W on November 17, 2011, 03:32:14 PM
I have infrequent correspondence with a guy in Australia. He said the prices of nearly all consumer goods and groceries are increasing as the Chinese buy up whatever is available. The relative strength of the Chinese military would make it very possible for them to seize it rather than buy it. Don't rule out India either, as it needs raw materials for its expanding economy.
And we have a more justified responsibility to protect Aussies from China than we did to protect Iraqi citizens and their neighbors from the atrocities of Saddam Hussein?
I'm pretty sure there's a few hundred thousand dead Kurds who wish they could argue that point with you. Oh and maybe a million or so more Iraqis and Iranians who would love to argue that as well.
In spite of the liberal focus becoming a lack of WMD in Iraq, let's consider the favor we did the world by taking this psychopath out of power.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
And we have a more justified responsibility to protect Aussies from China than we did to protect Iraqi citizens and their neighbors from the atrocities of Saddam Hussein?
I'm pretty sure there's a few hundred thousand dead Kurds who wish they could argue that point with you. Oh and maybe a million or so more Iraqis and Iranians who would love to argue that as well.
In spite of the liberal focus becoming a lack of WMD in Iraq, let's consider the favor we did the world by taking this psychopath out of power.
Well, some of the numbers are close, but reversed in sequence. Saddam killed about 1/4 million of his own people in his 25 + years. We killed a million civilians in the last 6 or 7 years. That's the Iraqi count, just to be clear.
Yeah, there were another million or so between Iraq and Iran during their war, with a great deal of the contribution to the death toll due to the chemical weapons we helped Iraq build.
Happy to help straighten out your numbers for you.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
In spite of the liberal focus becoming a lack of WMD in Iraq, let's consider the favor we did the world by taking this psychopath out of power.
WMDs were the stated reason for the war, not a lib conspiracy theory or talking point. That's the actual reason we invaded. The gassed Kurds really didn't enter into it.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
And we have a more justified responsibility to protect Aussies from China than we did to protect Iraqi citizens and their neighbors from the atrocities of Saddam Hussein?
I think the presence of 2500 Marines is negligible militarily, yet they serve a function as a trip wire to any hostile force. We did the same thing in Saudi prior to Gulf War One. Invading a country with a contingent of Marines on hand guarantees an overwhelming US response.
Quote from: Ed W on November 17, 2011, 05:14:52 PM
I think the presence of 2500 Marines is negligible militarily, yet they serve a function as a trip wire to any hostile force. We did the same thing in Saudi prior to Gulf War One. Invading a country with a contingent of Marines on hand guarantees an overwhelming US response.
How quickly we forget. Didn't 66,000 Americans eventually get killed after sending 500 "advisors" to some little third world country about 50 years ago?
Again, why is this acceptable to people like you and Wevus when your guy is in the White House? Even for the reasons of fiscal conservatism, I'm sick and tired of playing top cop all over the world, much less putting our soldiers at risk.
Quote from: we vs us on November 17, 2011, 04:54:46 PM
WMDs were the stated reason for the war, not a lib conspiracy theory or talking point. That's the actual reason we invaded. The gassed Kurds really didn't enter into it.
It was one of a myriad of stated reasons we went into Iraq. Missing WMD's, terrorist training camps, and a connection to the 9/11 terrorists, remember? WMD This may have been the only "stated" reason for talking points on trying to get Kerry elected in '04. In the run-up to the Iraq war, these atrocities were a major justification to every liberal and conservative in backing POTUS Bush on the call to action. Gassed Kurds and tortured Iraqis were very much a part of the sound bites in early 2002.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 10:50:27 PM
It was one of a myriad of stated reasons we went into Iraq. Missing WMD's, terrorist training camps, and a connection to the 9/11 terrorists, remember? WMD This may have been the only "stated" reason for talking points on trying to get Kerry elected in '04. In the run-up to the Iraq war, these atrocities were a major justification to every liberal and conservative in backing POTUS Bush on the call to action. Gassed Kurds and tortured Iraqis were very much a part of the sound bites in early 2002.
I thought we went for oil?
Quote from: Gaspar on November 18, 2011, 07:35:02 AM
I thought we went for oil?
We went to get paybacks for Saddam Hussein embarrassing Daddy.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 18, 2011, 07:35:02 AM
I thought we went for oil?
Shhhhh!
QuoteWe went to get paybacks for Saddam Hussein embarrassing Daddy.
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/6/7/7cd6bb0c-d28e-49e4-952f-53969775af55.jpg)
Remind you of anyone Gaspar?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 08:33:18 AM
Shhhhh!
Remind you of anyone Gaspar?
Reality's a bit**, ain't it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2011, 08:04:27 AM
We went to get paybacks for Saddam Hussein embarrassing Daddy.
You have used alot of laquer thinner back in the day....
Quote from: Breadburner on November 18, 2011, 09:33:30 AM
You have used alot of laquer thinner back in the day....
Gold spray paint.
He was trying to make his American Express into a gold card.
Quote from: Breadburner on November 18, 2011, 09:33:30 AM
You have used alot of laquer thinner back in the day....
Pretty obvious, isn't it. Probably gold paint too.
(http://gold%20spray%20paint.)
LOL. Great minds...
Lacquer thinner is good.
Lacquer thinner is impressive.
But it's paint that does the work!
(Paraphrasing Mark Twain.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 18, 2011, 11:20:49 AM
Lacquer thinner is good.
Lacquer thinner is impressive.
But it's paint that does the work!
(Paraphrasing Mark Twain.)
For a second I thought you were starting to bust out a Foo Fighters song.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
For a second I thought you were starting to bust out a Foo Fighters song.
I'm a ghost writer, too.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
For a second I thought you were starting to bust out a Foo Fighters song.
Here is a playlist that will help you through the day...put the headphones on, make at least 3 tabs on your Firefox browser, then just cycle through them until you get the 'buzzzzz'.... Music to sooth the soul and help you slide into the weekend! (I'm currently listening to the Stones. Gaga is next.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Kjh9lQXLWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2soXISAl7b8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
For a second I thought you were starting to bust out a Foo Fighters song.
I bet he likes two rims instead of one..... ;D
We can always count on breadhead to be whatever it is he is...
(Jerry,...is that you in there??)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 11:22:47 AM
For a second I thought you were starting to bust out a Foo Fighters song.
Does look surprisingly like "This Is A Call", doesn't it?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 02:27:42 PM
That's not even close to Aspergers. He could never be an engineer or any other highly technical type person.
Voted out of office would be my guess.
(http://ewinsidetv.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/southpark_180.jpg?w=180&h=135)
Quote from: Hoss on November 18, 2011, 12:53:03 PM
Does look surprisingly like "This Is A Call", doesn't it?
Just heard it for the first time a few minutes ago. No. Taken and modified from Mark Twain. LAE to find the source reference. (LAE = Left as exercise.)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
How quickly we forget. Didn't 66,000 Americans eventually get killed after sending 500 "advisors" to some little third world country about 50 years ago?
Again, why is this acceptable to people like you and Wevus when your guy is in the White House? Even for the reasons of fiscal conservatism, I'm sick and tired of playing top cop all over the world, much less putting our soldiers at risk.
Conan, you argued in favor of sending troops into Iraq to depose Saddam - when he posed no threat to the United States - yet you argue against sending Marines to Australia? We'll ignore the fact that we were allied with Saddam when the Iranians were a threat.
Is there some common thread underpinning these two apparently disparate arguments, or are you simply opposed to anything the Obama administration proposes?
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
Conan, you argued in favor of sending troops into Iraq to depose Saddam - when he posed no threat to the United States - yet you argue against sending Marines to Australia? We'll ignore the fact that we were allied with Saddam when the Iranians were a threat.
Is there some common thread underpinning these two apparently disparate arguments, or are you simply opposed to anything the Obama administration proposes?
No threat? You know who actually influenced my opinion on this more than anyone else? Please listen to the whole of President Clinton's comments. This was even after the controversy of the 2003 SOTU address taped in July of '03 on Larry King Live. This was the second time President Clinton affirmed on LK there were known missing WMD the day he left office. Those WMD were no doubt considered a threat to not only our national security, but to Iraqis and many others in the region.
The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim? We are freaking bankrupt. We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide. It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these. I have a specific set of values and ideals. Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so. Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.
Admittedly, my opinion has changed over the years on Iraq, mainly because we very possibly could have kept Hussein on a short leash, or perhaps not. He was playing a shell game with UN inspectors and flaunting UN sanctions. If you don't enforce those sanctions, then there's no deterrent value in them in the first place. It's pissed me off no end that we had to take the lead role there for so many years. I'm quite certain President Bush and his advisors believed Iraq was a one year milk run. If it had been, his legacy would have looked a whole lot better. Had we not been fighting in two different theaters at the same time, we might have gotten out of Iraq in a year, at least as far as our major involvement.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 05:28:40 PM
No threat? You know who actually influenced my opinion on this more than anyone else? Please listen to the whole of President Clinton's comments. This was even after the controversy of the 2003 SOTU address taped in July of '03 on Larry King Live. This was the second time President Clinton affirmed on LK there were known missing WMD the day he left office. Those WMD were no doubt considered a threat to not only our national security, but to Iraqis and many others in the region.
The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim? We are freaking bankrupt. We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide. It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these. I have a specific set of values and ideals. Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so. Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.
Admittedly, my opinion has changed over the years on Iraq, mainly because we very possibly could have kept Hussein on a short leash, or perhaps not. He was playing a shell game with UN inspectors and flaunting UN sanctions. If you don't enforce those sanctions, then there's no deterrent value in them in the first place. It's pissed me off no end that we had to take the lead role there for so many years. I'm quite certain President Bush and his advisors believed Iraq was a one year milk run. If it had been, his legacy would have looked a whole lot better. Had we not been fighting in two different theaters at the same time, we might have gotten out of Iraq in a year, at least as far as our major involvement.
I remember saying at the outset of the Iraq war to many of my Bush-supporting friends (and at the time I was a supporter of his, but not for this) that this will be his Vietnam. They all scoffed at me. While we didn't lose the manpower we did in Vietnam (58000 or so was the losses from that War), 4500 is still too many for something people were saying wouldn't last more than a month. Hell, even one American is too many.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 18, 2011, 05:28:40 PM
The reason I oppose increased presence in the Pacific Rim? We are freaking bankrupt. We need to quit being the world's cop and the country every one runs to to oust every single tin pot dictator, and quit being the one everyone runs to for a billion dollars after a mud-slide. It's got no bearing on me who the President is on issues like these. I have a specific set of values and ideals. Whomever is president doesn't sway my opinion on those. I'm quite certain there are 2500 able-bodied Aussies quite capable of ramping up a defense presence and they can use arms purchased from the United States to do so. Also consider how ridiculous a force of 2500 would be if the Chinese or NOKO were really interested in a nuclear attack on Australia- worthless.
For what it's worth, both South Korea and Japan shovel a lot of money our way to keep the current arrangement. I seem to recall that they pay for most of the cost of maintaining our presence in those countries. I guess that's the nice thing about seriously rebuilding countries like we did after WWII and the Korean War. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past while we were (almost) learning the lessons we so desperately needed to learn from Vietnam.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2011, 01:45:01 AM
For what it's worth, both South Korea and Japan shovel a lot of money our way to keep the current arrangement. I seem to recall that they pay for most of the cost of maintaining our presence in those countries. I guess that's the nice thing about seriously rebuilding countries like we did after WWII and the Korean War. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the past while we were (almost) learning the lessons we so desperately needed to learn from Vietnam.
If they pay the entire freight, I have not problem with it. I'm sick and tired of being hand-out central.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2011, 10:39:44 AM
If they pay the entire freight, I have not problem with it.
I'm not sure precisely how the accounting works out, but I do know that it amounts to billions a year that they pay us.