PDA

View Full Version : Fortress Western Hemisphere, why not?



Mainecoons
03-03-2012, 02:22 PM
OK, let's have a discussion about that sacred cow of the U.S. policing the world. Really, what would happen if the U.S. got out of that business entirely and concentrated on restoring the Department of Offense back to the Department of Defense.

Who could/would cross huge oceans in sufficient numbers to invade the western hemisphre? Do you think the Russian public would stand still for it? The Chinese?

Surely not the primitive Islamic states. The only reason they can threaten us is because we are stupid enough to let them get off of planes and ships and waltz into this country.

Does anyone seriously believe that we don't already have and could quickly make absolutely impregnable, a nuclear defense of this hemisphere? Does anyone seriously believe that Iran or North Korea could successfully subdue the U.S. with nuclear weapons? Does anyone wonder how they might act if we weren't constantly in their face with our navies and bases?

Does anyone seriously think we have to make the world safe for Hyundais and that the South Koreans can't and shouldn't pay for their own defense? Do we REALLY need to pay for thousands and thousands of troops parked in Europe?

I agree completely with Ron Paul on this matter. We cause a lot of our own problems by constantly trying to police others instead of spending our money on independence and strenghtening ourselves and allies in this hemisphere.

Chris
03-03-2012, 02:58 PM
Time to end both the warfare and the welfare state we've become.

It's simply unsustainable and not in our interests.

Peter1469
03-03-2012, 02:59 PM
No other nation has the ability to project large conventional military force across the oceans in the manner that the US does. The movie Red Dawn was very fictional from that stand point.

We should pull our conventional military forces back to the US. Let others take some responsibility on the world stage.

Conley
03-03-2012, 03:01 PM
It's a complicated issue and we can't just look at it in a vacuum. I agree that ideally we would pull out from many of these areas, but yes, countries would come after us and our allies. For example, without the U.S. to help, Israel would be gone. That's a big consequence.

I don't think we have a nuclear defense capable of stopping foreign powers or even rogue Islamic states. We've talked on here about how simple it would be to move a nuke on a ship to international waters off the East Coast of the U.S. and launch undetected. How would we stop it? Our borders and ports are sieves that can be penetrated at ease, likely with all manner of nuclear and biological weapons. A decade after 9/11, immigration visas still are not policed nor enforced. Not to get sidetracked but I believe we are at risk of a terror attack on home soil that would be many multiples of the 9/11 casualty figures. Nuclear proliferation can only be slowed, not stopped. It is just a matter of time.

I love Ron Paul and even more the idea of focusing on the defense of this country (rather than the offense), but the very first step has to be tightening our borders and securing our immigration policy. Without that security, there is absolutely no way we can stand down abroad.

Peter1469
03-03-2012, 03:39 PM
If we weren't spending so much money supporting large conventional armies overseas we may have enough money to place nuclear detectors along our coasts. I am not sure what it would take- sensors. A couple of years ago a company offered to make offshore ports along both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico to have all incoming ships stop there for inspection. They said they would pay the upfront costs if the US made the use of the ports mandatory. Congress said no. If that were in effect, it would make it easier to prevent unidentified ships from bring nukes close to our shores.

Also just because we bring our conventional forces home does not mean that we don't have other assets to wield.

MMC
03-03-2012, 05:33 PM
Concerning Foreign Policy I have always questioned our practice of keeping on Ambassadors. Using the same Individual in dealing with whatever Foreign Countries. Looking at the pro's and con's of it. I am of the opinion in that not telegraphing who our Ambassador will be to that Country. So as to decrease the chances of influence by those that we must deal with. Let alone reducing conventional forces overseas.

Regionalinzing our Embassies for the (I say) 5 regions of the planet. One Embassy, to be used as a hub in it's original purpose. Meetings with other Foreigners should be video taped and observed at all times. This would greatly reduce the Amount of Marines set for Embasy Detail to be reduced. With the 5 being able to be defended more aptly than what they are now. Reducing money spent for traveling costs alone. Reducing SOS staff and that budget they get for those NFP's and or NGO's. Moreover we then have whatever Diplomats and or Foreign Leaders recorded as to their words. So there can be no misunderstanding as to what was stated.

Let the Europeans pay for their own defenses. Since they seem to like to being worried about what is happening in other countries and interfering in them. Then let them be the ones to police whoever they want to get involved with.

We should always be about taking care of own house before that of others. Stopping all this Nation-building in other countries should be an absolute must. Should any be money be given out for such when our is not secure and in dire repair?

Plus we should have never gave up the Panama Canal. Nor allow those that want to build a canal thru Nicaraugra to do so.

Mainecoons
03-03-2012, 06:46 PM
Why is Israel being gone such a big consequence? It would be far better to offer assylum to all the jews than it is to prop up an artificial construct in the middle of enemies like Israel. Israel gives them a reason to exist and to distract their populations from their shitty governments. Perhaps if there was no Israel, more of those tin pot dictators would be gone.

Think outside of the neocon box here, people.

Conley
03-03-2012, 06:58 PM
Why is Israel being gone such a big consequence? It would be far better to offer assylum to all the jews than it is to prop up an artificial construct in the middle of enemies like Israel. Israel gives them a reason to exist and to distract their populations from their shitty governments. Perhaps if there was no Israel, more of those tin pot dictators would be gone.

Think outside of the neocon box here, people.

I'm not sure I've ever had anyone suggest I think like a neocon. :grin:

Anyhow, as long as we need oil, which will be for a while, we'll keep propping those dictators up with or without Israel.

I'm not sure how many Israelis would want to move to the U.S. I assume many of them could do so now if they wanted, but they choose to live in Israel. You can't really expect them to just leave? Any thoughts on my main points?


If we weren't spending so much money supporting large conventional armies overseas we may have enough money to place nuclear detectors along our coasts. I am not sure what it would take- sensors. A couple of years ago a company offered to make offshore ports along both coasts and the Gulf of Mexico to have all incoming ships stop there for inspection. They said they would pay the upfront costs if the US made the use of the ports mandatory. Congress said no. If that were in effect, it would make it easier to prevent unidentified ships from bring nukes close to our shores.

Nuclear detectors along the coasts won't work as far as I know. The ocean is way to big and the signature too low. Same goes for having some checkpoint - I expect the extra fuel and shipping costs to make everyone go through would be prohibitive. You know how our country loves those cheap goods from China.

MMC
03-03-2012, 07:32 PM
I'm not sure I've ever had anyone suggest I think like a neocon. :grin:

Anyhow, as long as we need oil, which will be for a while, we'll keep propping those dictators up with or without Israel.

I'm not sure how many Israelis would want to move to the U.S. I assume many of them could do so now if they wanted, but they choose to live in Israel. You can't really expect them to just leave? Any thoughts on my main points?



Nuclear detectors along the coasts won't work as far as I know. The ocean is way to big and the signature too low. Same goes for having some checkpoint - I expect the extra fuel and shipping costs to make everyone go through would be prohibitive. You know how our country loves those cheap goods from China.


I don't know about that.....with Control of the Panama Canal. I think that it could be done. Shipping lanes in the Northa and the South. Both Coasts. Freighters would be about the fastest and safest shipping lanes anyways. Anything outside the box, so to speak. Would automatically be suspect.

Mainecoons
03-03-2012, 08:05 PM
At some point, the Israelis will either leave or die. Like Yugoslavia, the country is an artificial construct that will not survive.


I don't think we have a nuclear defense capable of stopping foreign powers or even rogue Islamic states.

Of course we do. None of them have serious delivery systems or are likely to have same for a long, long time. And I reiterate, what is the motivation once we are out of their faces?

We do not need the Middle East. We could replace oil from there tomorrow from this hemisphere alone, and within a very few years, from within the U.S. This, of course, means more conservation. Plan on parking those fat SUVs for good. But the price is well worth it.

For a hundred and fifty years, this country did quite OK minding its own business and not policing the world. WWII was an aberration not likely to be repeated. Islam is too primitive economically, socially and scientifically to mount any real challenge. China is clearly interested in waging economic war, not shooting war. Russia is old demographically and focused on improving their own standard of living. Africa is still living in the stone age.

We don't need to be policing the world, we can't afford it and there really is no strategic interest in doing so, least of all in propping up an aberration like Israel.

Mister D
03-03-2012, 08:32 PM
I have to admit that I was surprised by the amount of oil imports from the Mid East. I thought a significantly larger share came from that region. It makes me think that the democratizing agenda of the neocons and their Europeans lackeys has less to do with oil than I had previously thought.

Peter1469
03-03-2012, 08:54 PM
I say we let the Israelis set up a new homeland along our boarder with Mexico. We can make it 50 miles wide and they will have much more territory than they do now. So long as no illegals get through we would be good.

jgreer
03-03-2012, 09:08 PM
LOL not bad, not bad at aaaaaalll

Mainecoons
03-04-2012, 01:57 PM
Exactly. We could get unhooked from Middle East oil in short order.

The foreign military midadventurism goes hand in hand with progressivism and statism. It is just forcing your will on others on a greater scale. And the U.S. needs to get out of the business.

Mister D
03-04-2012, 02:18 PM
Exactly. We could get unhooked from Middle East oil in short order.

The foreign military midadventurism goes hand in hand with progressivism and statism. It is just forcing your will on others on a greater scale. And the U.S. needs to get out of the business.

Hear hear!