DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**pheelixoss** · 12-13-2011, 05:28 AM

Interesting:
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/c...w¤t=Mowing.jpg

Arguments put by Paul:
(1) The US should not have been involved in WW2.
(2) The Anti Defamation League and Bnai Brith has spies around the country.

Yeah, this guy is peachy.

You're clearly misrepresenting his comments. He wanted the Nazis and Soviets to slaughter each other, while the UK and US stayed out of it. That's seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, his comments about the ADL are simply repeating another news story about arrests in San Francisco.

While it is true that an isolationist US would not be the target of Al-Qaeda in the short-term it hardly follows that the US should therefore adopt an isolationist foreign policy. That would be strategic madness. Al-Qaeda is not the biggest problem on the market today. There are myriad problems in the Middle East, China etc which make Al Qaeda seem insignificant by comparison. That's what makes isolationism foolish and dangerous. If Ron Paul is an isolationist that would have very devastating consequences for American interests if he were ever elected.

No, the short term solution is pouring resources into defense. The only rational long term stance is to reduce defense spending, and the easiest way to do that is to stop meddling in foreign countries. If you want to go on foreign adventures so badly, spend Australian dollars on it.

At peak levels, Australia had 2,000 troops in Iraq, and 1,500 in Afghanistan. The United States, which is about 15 times the population of Australia, had 150,000 troops in Iraq, and 90,000 in Afghanistan. To match that proportion, Australia would have had to increase its commitment by 400% in Iraq and 300% in Afghanistan. Australia spends 1.8% of GDP on defense to America's 4.9%. Australia is mooching, and I'm sick of it.

800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

Including interest on defense related loans, and other hidden costs, Americans spend almost $4000 per person on defense. WHY? Our Indian tribes have all been vanquished, every able bodied Mexican is already mowing lawns here, and the Canadians are Canadians. We have no immediate threats, we have no reason to go into debt spending billions on bullshit. America has no nearby enemies, the most powerful navy, alliances with most of the other great powers, and a huge and well armed citizenry. We have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Most people know that the most powerful air force is the US Air Force. But many people forget that the second most powerful air force is the US Navy. It's cool, but totally outside of our budget.

If Australia is afraid of China, then Australia should spend more than 1.8% of GDP on defense. America shouldn't be expected to pay for your protection. When Australians are kicking in as much as Americans, we can discuss raising American spending levels. Until then, shut up you free-loading jackass.

12-13-2011, 05:28 AM	#22
pheelixoss Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 399 Senior Member	Interesting: http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/c...w¤t=Mowing.jpg Arguments put by Paul: (1) The US should not have been involved in WW2. (2) The Anti Defamation League and Bnai Brith has spies around the country. Yeah, this guy is peachy. You're clearly misrepresenting his comments. He wanted the Nazis and Soviets to slaughter each other, while the UK and US stayed out of it. That's seems pretty smart to me. Furthermore, his comments about the ADL are simply repeating another news story about arrests in San Francisco. While it is true that an isolationist US would not be the target of Al-Qaeda in the short-term it hardly follows that the US should therefore adopt an isolationist foreign policy. That would be strategic madness. Al-Qaeda is not the biggest problem on the market today. There are myriad problems in the Middle East, China etc which make Al Qaeda seem insignificant by comparison. That's what makes isolationism foolish and dangerous. If Ron Paul is an isolationist that would have very devastating consequences for American interests if he were ever elected. No, the short term solution is pouring resources into defense. The only rational long term stance is to reduce defense spending, and the easiest way to do that is to stop meddling in foreign countries. If you want to go on foreign adventures so badly, spend Australian dollars on it. At peak levels, Australia had 2,000 troops in Iraq, and 1,500 in Afghanistan. The United States, which is about 15 times the population of Australia, had 150,000 troops in Iraq, and 90,000 in Afghanistan. To match that proportion, Australia would have had to increase its commitment by 400% in Iraq and 300% in Afghanistan. Australia spends 1.8% of GDP on defense to America's 4.9%. Australia is mooching, and I'm sick of it. 800px-PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG Including interest on defense related loans, and other hidden costs, Americans spend almost $4000 per person on defense. WHY? Our Indian tribes have all been vanquished, every able bodied Mexican is already mowing lawns here, and the Canadians are Canadians. We have no immediate threats, we have no reason to go into debt spending billions on bullshit. America has no nearby enemies, the most powerful navy, alliances with most of the other great powers, and a huge and well armed citizenry. We have absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Most people know that the most powerful air force is the US Air Force. But many people forget that the second most powerful air force is the US Navy. It's cool, but totally outside of our budget. If Australia is afraid of China, then Australia should spend more than 1.8% of GDP on defense. America shouldn't be expected to pay for your protection. When Australians are kicking in as much as Americans, we can discuss raising American spending levels. Until then, shut up you free-loading jackass.
	Quote