Otis

Right. His embrace of all things Bush just after 9/11 is what I meant.

You know, the guy that swift-boated him.

__________________

Deson

Yeah no shit. When I saw them embrace in 2004 that killed him for me. Truthfully had Hillary come out of the Dem primary, I'd be supporting her over him because of it.

__________________

Otis

Tomorrow's WaPo front page story. Interesting read:

McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence - washingtonpost.com

__________________

Deson

Like I said, turning my stomach.

__________________

Illuminator

Has that survived the same Supreme Court gauntlet that killed the Contract With America line-item veto?

Is a defense force enough to retake Taiwan, guard the oil shipping to the Persian Gulf, AND force a healthy amount of caution upon Japan and India?

Conventional proxy war doesn't mean skimp out on your offensive power, it just means no nukes.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Deson

Eh? President has had that power power forever, it's more explicitly laid out in the War Powers act though.

Yes, yes it is. If you noticed though, they aren't trying to actually attack those place, just build said healthy amount of caution in their neighbors to make them reevaluate long term Western ties. Taiwan especially is moving closer all on it's own into China's orbit. Again, why fire a shot when you can use other means to get what you want including implied threat?

No it does not however, it also means large ground war forces are impractical. Given the sheer expense of maintaining such an active force, reducing to a surgical strike force is not a bad idea at all. We did it after every single war prior and Republicans/Conservatives used to advocate for practical draw downs and proper expense.

__________________

Illuminator

In the Ron Paul book it says military actions were always approved with a formal declaration of war or at least resolutions (like the wars against the Barbary pirates), and that only starting with the Korean War did the President suddenly assume the war-making power for himself. I have a growing feeling that it was never directly challenged in the way it needed to be.

Regardless of China's current methods of accomplishing its strategic needs, it is clearly building up its forces.

And the advantage of a Gulf War-size force is that money and lives are saved in the long run by being able to bring a faster and more severe end to the conflict at hand. There would have been no tug of war over a measly 30K extra troops ("surge") if 200-300K had occupied Iraq from the start; the whole thing would have been over long ago.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Deson

Ron Paul needs to reread history. Mexican American War, incursions against the Spanish in Florida and minor conflicts otherwise, to include the Myriad Indian wars were all president initiated using his power as Commander in Chief. And in case you want to take the diversion of at least token congressional approval, there have been almost none without such a token to include Vietnam and the cited Korea. Korea was a treaty obligation. Guess that's another reason Ron Paul comes across as a nut.

Yes it's building up its forces but that wasn't the point. The point was that China is in no way the military successor to the U.S.S.R. It is however a growing influence challenger in a world where influence beats bullets.

Yes but that's different. It's already been stated Rummy was an ass for trying his limited force engagement in Iraq however in Afghanistan it worked exactly how it was supposed to. Those were and are the conflicts of the future thus far. Force size wouldn't even be a major concern if the U.S. still used the draft and reserve system properly. Even now it wouldn't be a concern if Rummy had really gone to war with "the Army we had". Proper force for the proper engagements does not mean holding down to an immensely expensive defense system for enemies that do not yet exist. While certainly an advocate of maintaining a strong defense posture given our world police role, we really should do it in a matter consistent with our budgets and the with the consideration of things not being done socially with that money. 22 billion buys a lot of books and food as opposed to one as yet to be proven fighter. A well situated citizenry is the most potent defense any nation can ask--and pay--for.

And wtf do nukes have to do with anything? Nukes are, for the West and China at least, nothing more than counterbalance weapons.

__________________

Illuminator

The Mexican American War did eventually receive its congressional approval but the presidential provocation was never fully accepted as constitutional. The U.N. charter couldn't have been the treaty obligation in Korea because of Article 43, saying the agreements to provide force "shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes". Congress still has to complete the link.

Do you think Ahmadinejad is going to attempt a holocaust against the Jews today? Of course not, in his head he waits until tomorrow which by then he'll have a nuclear arsenal. Will China deal in brinkmanship on any matter today? Of course not, they are waiting until tomorrow which by then they'll have a military that can look the United States in the eye. This is just common sense, isn't it?

Well what happens when the enemy does exist the way we predicted, and rather than a technologically superior force we're instead stuck with a mirror image of what China buys from Russia anyway?

Have you been a socialist all this time who thinks any money not invested into national defense should still be publicly spent in at least some way? Is that what you're really saying here?

Nukes define a fence that a military conflict can't cross. Anything inside is fair game.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Deson

Point still stands. Korea was not the first and while no formal declaration of war was made, the police action had tacit approval from the congress until it was firmly seen to be a stalemate.

Yes it is common sense but again, why even play those games when you can do it all without really even hinting at a fight? China's influence is greatly valued because it comes without Western strings.Both parties get essentially exactly what they want in any such deal so why would China spend more than it has to? China again is not the military successor to the Soviet Union and while we should certainly be wary of them, they do not warrant the same military we used for Soviet deterrence and containment.As for Ahmenijhad, he's not actually in charge, the Ayatollahs are and they want no part of a nuclear war. They certainly don't want to pay the cost of any such attack on Israel since as Hillary so kindly pointed out "We will annihilate them". Not to say Iran should have nukes at all but they lack the will to use them for more than blackmail.Blackmail that will more than likely fail so really it's just an influence enhancer. Unlike Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollahs are neither stupid nor insane.Even Kim realized his precarious position when China spelled it out for him...diplomatically.

I never argued against being technologically superior and neither did Rummy. In fact, Rummy's whole problem was more faith in tech than in good old fashioned man power.

Not at all what I'm saying but calling reinvestment into the country socialist is completely asinine. Money reinvested into the country in the form of business loans, improved education, poverty support and infrastructure pay far more in both immediate and long term payoffs than 22 billion for a weapon that will likely never see service and is not built for the enemies that exist or likely will exist tomorrow. At worst it could be 22billion less in taxes Americans have to pay.

Yes, nukes are counterbalance weapons that give outsized influence to powers that have them. In other words, nukes are weapons of influence to those not inclined to use them so again, why mention them in the context you did?

__________________