Thanks for clarifying my position. :hihi: I agree with what you've said. I was basically referring to the idea that few would support cuts to the military that would put currently deployed troops at unnecessary risk.
It seems she'd be another Bush, or worse. She's gotten nasty on the campaign trail. At one point I had a pretty high opinion of her.
Not that you need it, but I respect your decision, I respect even more that you took the time to weigh the options without just completely dismissing either of the candidates.:thumb:
I agree, Red. Hence the part about "more advantageous locales" - read, "new Europe".... My sense was that he was arguing for isolationism. Agree here as well. The neo-cons are dead (I hope). Long live the neo-cons...
what sense?:hihi: nope, just arguing against expanded military spending. clearly though we have to swing back in the direction of diplomacy and tact from brute force.
Tact is useless without credibility. And diplomacy is useless without credible force. If you're not an isolationist, then having a few thousand troops in Asia and Europe shouldn't p!ss you off. Because they are buying us far more maneuvering space than the money you're spending on them.
i we were a good ally then we wouldnt need the troops there. our allies in those areas would provide troops.
