lol veta

Veta wasn't grasping at straws, he was honestly lol'ing at your geography skills. : P

But I agree with most of what you are saying DC. The military machine is eating up our finances and devoting time and resources to countries that honestly don't give a fuck about us (Iran) is both dumb and ridiculous. Kicking a little ass once in awhile is necessary, but kicking too much ass can be detrimental.

1. Thrax spoke well.
2. In most places besides the Americas being Westernized has a negative connotaion. So while you might have meant it as far as democracy, others took it as the US being pompous asses.
3. I would like to think that the gov is more of the pompous asses and the people are less overall so...
4. I want to see an independent candidate run for pres...I think that might make it a fun election...However I can't think of who i would want to run haha.
5. I got side tracked sorry I'll shut up now haha

My geography skills are fine. Vietnam is not far away base from Russia; when you are comparing it to the distance between the USA and it's bases. I clearly place my statement within that context. For example; the moon isn't far from the earth in the context of space. I mean seriously; it's hard to get to the substance of an argument if you nit pick over stupid crap.

Now back to the real argument. I posted the thread because clearly we are on a path that leads to war with Iran and I believe it is a mistake to do so.

My comment about Iranian youth being westernized is maybe perhaps too general of a word and brings about negative connotations. To be more specific this time; many youth in Iran are not happy with the theocratic regime and would prefer one that is less restrictive to their rights. The Iranian youth dream of freedom; just as most of us would be dreaming of if we were born there. Hopefully this is more clear.

Transporting bulk goods by water is slow but it is incredibly cheap compared to other forms of transport. So "distance" by water is not the same as "distance" by land. Or air, or space.

Best to leave naval strategy to the experts.

Yeah that was my other point. Vietnam and Russia are pretty close to each other via water. They even both share border with the China Seas.

Anyway; the point is moot; Veta is just trolling. He gave up on trying to respond with substance and has now started with the lazy one liner troll attempts. This is usually when I stop listening.

If you're referring to that Newt thread I have a bunch of slams for that ready but it takes time to write a response - I have the flu so I've not felt up to it.

Vietnam is a tropical jungle land near the equator - Russia is mostly above the 50th parallel. That's why I laughed. Also if you know anything about maintaining naval dominance you should realizes global naval bases are an imperative as skrum tried to explain. I mean shit, the British had 3 bases in the Mediterranean during the Napoleonic Wars (Gibraltar, Cyprus and Malta). All of which were pertinent to protecting British business interests.

I agree some fat could be cut from the military - there's plenty of occupations that really aren't necessary anymore (Japan, Germany, etc). But the majority of military expenditures don't come from the odd thousand soldiers stationed at bases around the world - it comes from the ridiculous amount of money we spend on practically useless innovations like the F22 Raptor which has never flown and cost 67 billion to develop just so we can buy them for 150 million a piece.

I doubt all our bases take 67 billion to maintain a year.

Skrum; you should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0NXucMk12w

It's a speech that RP gave to Iowa Veterans the other day. It addresses a lot of the things we have been talking about; in terms of defense.

I'd be interested to see what you think about it; seeing as we come from slightly (possibly larger; im not sure) different perspectives on the issue.

I'll admit that 5-10 years ago; I saw things fairly similar to the way you do. Since; then I've started to slowly move in the direction of RP on foreign policy. It is interesting to me to see where your thoughts are on the substance of the speech. At the very least; it represents a solid foundation for a discussion; as it is often hard to do so without a common reference point (ie. your interpretation of RP foreign policy may differ from mine; so perhaps we may actually agree on things that we incorrectly assumed we didn't.)