The Tea Party Conundrum

[phreakwars]

From: http://washingtonindependent.com/81684/the-futility-of-budget-cuts

 

Today, an Economist/YouGov poll making the rounds shows that Americans would vastly prefer budget cuts to new taxes — by 62 percent to 5 percent. The poll goes on to ask Americans which government spending programs they would choose to cut: “If government spending is reduced in order to balance the budget, which of the following government programs should receive lower federal funding than they currently do?” (Respondents could pick more than one thing to axe.)

 

Here is how they responded:

 

[attach=full]3056[/attach]

 

The most expendable programs, according to poll takers, were mass transit, housing, agriculture, environment and foreign aid, the runaway winner at 71 percent. The problem? These programs together barely comprise 3 percent of the federal budget. Even if the programs were entirely eliminated, the cuts would do nothing to solve the United States’ long-term entitlement program. Indeed, the responses had no obvious correlation with spending size.

 

The red bars in this graph indicate expenditures in the various areas:

 

 

 

 

[attach=full]3057[/attach]

 

 

 

 

The poll highlights the conundrum: Americans want to solve the long-term deficit program and want the federal government to run a balanced budget. They are willing to make budget cuts. But the government cannot cut enough from discretionary programs to bring the budget into check and ultimately to reduce the deficit. (Half of Americans still believe the government can.) Entitlement programs — Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security — are at the heart of the problem, with spending growth in health care programs the single biggest culprit. The lone solution — save for politically improbable radical spending cuts to defense, health care programs and social security — is tax hikes. Most economists agree on the point, reiterated strongly by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke in a speech yesterday. But the promise of tax increases is hardly a savvy campaign platform, and it will be up to members of Congress to sell the necessity and prudence of tax hikes to an economically distressed citizenry.

[timesjoke]

The average American does not know where the real waste is. Almost all Departments of the Government spend from 1/4 to 1/3 of their funds on the buracracy needed to control the agency. The federal Government could easily drop 1/4 of it's spending by eliminating the buracracy. This works at the local level as well. Take a school system for example, most County School systems spend around 1/3 of their budget on things and people who do not teach children one thing. Millions are spent on mowing grass and people sitting in offices who do nothing but push paper all day. There is no need for most of this waste. Private companies can be contracted to cut grass at a fraction of the cost the County spends on employees, equipment, and retirements for Government workers. Most of the paperwork that is passed around is simply "find work" excuses. Almost all of the school curriculum is set by the State, not local school boards so what are they really doing?

 

 

Working our way up the chain we can easily find hundreds of thousands of workers doing completely unneeded jobs and wasting money.

 

 

Take the IRS. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year just in the enforcement arm of the IRS. So we spend massive amounts of money for very little return. Switch to the 'fair tax' and suddenly we don't need an IRS because everyone who spends money to live is paying taxes. No need to have an enforcement division because everyone is paying.

[ImWithStupid]

[attach=full]3058[/attach]

[hugo]

The fact is there are enough Americans to turn an election who believe we can continue to have low taxes and high spending. Those who want low taxes need to persuade the majority of voters to give up entitlements.To attack entitlements without persuading voters first of the need for it would be to make the same mistake Obama made in reverse. Obama tried to shove healthcare down our throats the outcome was the Democrats got routed. We live in perilous times for a politician.

 

Defense spending can be cut dramatically: stop being the world's policeman. Declare victory in Afghanistan and go home. Tell Israel to take care of themselves. Abolish Homeland Security and repeal the Patriot Act. Remove our troops from Europe and Korea. Save a few bucks, and the lives of our soldiers and at the same time leave our citizens safer. Let the nuts in the ME kill each other.

 

Stop restricting supply in the medical field. Eliminate licensing requirements for all those engaged in medicine. Eliminate prescription requirements.Watch healthcare costs drop dramatically.

[timesjoke]

Years ago when America had some production at home, we could have gone isolationist, today we cannot. When there is a small conflict in the world, oil prices shoot up, move troops out of everywhere in the world and you eliminate the ability for the relative peace we now see in the world and conflicts will happen. North/South Korea is a great example.

 

 

Leave Israel on their own? Sounds good but once the Muslims know America will not help, Israel will be forced to defend themselves. America is not defending Israel right now, it is protecting everyone else because they will light up the Middle East if they are cornered, and see what happens to oil prices after the entire middle east is turned into a sheet of glass. At the very least we need the ability to provide for our own energy and oil needs before we can consider turning our backs on the world.

 

 

 

No, the answer is not to go isolationist, the answer is to do what we are doing smarter. Just the IRS removal could allow America to slowly catch up on our debt if we freeze spending at the 2008 level. We can find other things to eliminate like the department of agriculture and save even more hundreds of millions a year. There are real and easy reductions that we can make if we are just willing to deflate the size of the Government.

[ImWithStupid]

I wouldn't advocate isolationism. That would be suicidal and stupid.

 

I do however think we can do without some of the over 700 military bases we have overseas.

 

Let's leave all the countries that are pointing fingers at us for causing this or causing that, have to use some of their own money to protect themselves.

[timesjoke]

I wouldn't advocate isolationism. That would be suicidal and stupid.

 

Agreed.

 

 

I do however think we can do without some of the over 700 military bases we have overseas.

 

I agree with this too, some reductions are reasonable, as long as we keep some in place for appearances and deterrent value. I would say we can safely drop around half our over seas bases but the only problem is if we have a big problem we can't deal with it from the reduced numbers of troops. What we would have to do is beef up our reserves numbers so we can easily bring up our manpower if something big happens.

 

Let's leave all the countries that are pointing fingers at us for causing this or causing that, have to use some of their own money to protect themselves.

 

I don't know about that, sometimes we should be there just for stability sake even if people don't like us.

 

 

What I would like to see is someone other than America pay for things like UN actions. It is easy for the UN to say do this or do that when America is paying for everything but if we demanded everyone who votes for something must help pay for it, suddenly things would change. I also think the UN should be moved to another Country, why should America absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in protection costs for delegates? There was a story about millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets by visiting delegates too. Let them go someplace else.

[hugo]

Isolationism would include not engaging in international trade. No one is recommending isolationism here. What I recommend is the policy presented in Washington's Farewell Address, liberalized trade with, all entangling alliances with none. War is another big government program.

 

Of course, defense cuts would just partially address the smallest of our triple deficits. There are going to have to be some tough decisions to address SS and healthcare.

[timesjoke]

Hard to have much international trade with the world at war.

 

We turned a blind eye on the mess of Hitler building strength, how did that work out for us?

 

 

 

As I said before, the conditions to go isolationist do not exist anymore. We simply can't do it anymore.

[hugo]

Hard to have much international trade with the world at war.

 

We turned a blind eye on the mess of Hitler building strength, how did that work out for us?

 

 

 

As I said before, the conditions to go isolationist do not exist anymore. We simply can't do it anymore.

There would be less war in the world if we would stop engaging in war., common sense. No Hitler's on the horizon. Of course the Russians had him beat anyways. We were not needed in Europe.

 

Some people think if they label something they are engaging in intelligent debate.

[timesjoke]

There would be less war in the world if we would stop engaging in war., common sense.

 

By us yes, but you forget that our being involved is the only thing keeping North and south Korea from fighting. You also forget the only reason the Middle East does not attack Israel is because they know we will help them. If we follow the isolationist route you want to use, massive and "trade killing" wars will result. Right now even a small battle results in huge disruption in oil sales and we see prices at the pump spike up. A battle in the middle east with Israel will stop oil trade almost completely so what do you think that will mean to the average American hugo?

 

People have a hard enough time paying to heat their homes now, prices will spike 20 times over what they are now and rationing will be needed once the war in the Middle East starts. What then hugo?

 

 

 

 

No Hitler's on the horizon.

 

Because of America. There was no Hitler on the horizon just before Hitler showed up either hugo. It actually costs less to maintain a small presence all the time than to mobilize a huge force to try and dislodge an enemy force already dug in. See D-day for an example.

 

 

 

 

Of course the Russians had him beat anyways. We were not needed in Europe.

 

Some people think if they label something they are engaging in intelligent debate.

 

 

Just like some people can tell a lie that Hitler was already beaten before America showed up and believe they are engaged in intelligent debate.

 

 

If Hitler was already beaten, why did so many American troops die fighting the Germans? If they were already beaten, surely the newly arrived American troops would have easily walked through the German troops right? Obviously you once again demonstrate how you know nothing and only want to twist a discussion to justify your radical beliefs. In this case you want America to go isolationist, so you make up crap like Hitler was already beat to try and justify us now turning our backs on the world.

 

 

Tell me something hugo, did you know that without the help of the French America would not now be independent? America and all we stand for was only made possible because an outside Country helped us to find freedom. They crossed an Ocean and gave us what we needed to be free. Now it is your position that America should turn it's back on the rest of the world now that we have what we want so screw everyone else?

[hugo]

Anybody who thinks the US was needed to beat Hitler is clearly delusional, Not worthy of debating. Like debating the existance of Santa with a six year old. The kind of person who believes legally stopping people from voting is the same as wishing someone would not vote.

 

Korea:

 

South Korea's ecomomy is greater by more than 10 times North Korea's. They can defend their own nation. In fact our stupidity of having troops on the border is the only thing stopping North Korea from entering the trash heap of history.

 

As you can see, folks. People will go to great lengths to defend their own pet governmnt programs. Cutting spending will not be easy.

 

Why is it liberals/progressives always think we should be like the French?

[phreakwars]

[jokersarewild]

Just like some people can tell a lie that Hitler was already beaten before America showed up and believe they are engaged in intelligent debate.

 

It's not a lie, though.

 

If Hitler was already beaten, why did so many American troops die fighting the Germans? If they were already beaten, surely the newly arrived American troops would have easily walked through the German troops right?

 

They died because Germans had to fight a war on two fronts. They still had to attempt to take over Europe, which is where we came in. If we hadn't shown up, they might've gotten Europe. Only problem is that to hold off Russia, you have to split your army between holding the occupied countries and fighting off Russia, who still had plenty of people to throw at the war. That's why you don't start fighting with Russia when you're fighting everyone else too.

 

Obviously you once again demonstrate how you know nothing and only want to twist a discussion to justify your radical beliefs. In this case you want America to go isolationist, so you make up crap like Hitler was already beat to try and justify us now turning our backs on the world.

 

Hugo said that? Really?

 

Isolationism would include not engaging in international trade. No one is recommending isolationism here. What I recommend is the policy presented in Washington's Farewell Address, liberalized trade with, all entangling alliances with none.

 

TJ, stop making stuff up. It makes you look kinda dumb.

 

Tell me something hugo, did you know that without the help of the French America would not now be independent? America and all we stand for was only made possible because an outside Country helped us to find freedom. They crossed an Ocean and gave us what we needed to be free. Now it is your position that America should turn it's back on the rest of the world now that we have what we want so screw everyone else?

 

Yes, the French did help us, but not as much in the way you think. The British ultimately withdrew to fight the French for sugar, which was a very rare commodity at the time. They didn't see the value of maintaining a fight oversees when they had other things to worry about.

 

Also, the colonists were kind of a whiny bunch. They rarely ever actually paid the taxes they were bitching about so much. But hey, why teach the truth in history classes when you can teach patriotic bullshit and make people like John Hancock (made most of his money smuggling goods illegally) sound like true patriots.

[hugo]

The recent recommendations of the bipartisan commission recommended three parts spending cuts for every one part tax increase. Of course, no one on either side of the aisle likes it because it means they will have to tell people you cannot have your cake and eat it too. For too many years we have been living at the expense of the next generation to the point where the massive debts are now affecting us. Sooner or later something has to be done, and it better be sooner. There is a reason Britain and Europe are making tough decisions now.

[hugo]

Basically, the unpaid increase in government in the last 30 years has set up a political minefield for those of all ideologies. It is gonna take some bitter medicine to get us out of this mess.

[timesjoke]

 

It's not a lie, though.

 

Really? Let's look at your next post....

 

 

 

They died because Germans had to fight a war on two fronts. They still had to attempt to take over Europe, which is where we came in. If we hadn't shown up, they might've gotten Europe. Only problem is that to hold off Russia, you have to split your army between holding the occupied countries and fighting off Russia, who still had plenty of people to throw at the war. That's why you don't start fighting with Russia when you're fighting everyone else too.

 

It was a vcery close thing and you even admit that the Germans would have taken all of Europe so how can you say the Germans were already defeated if America was needed to stop him? You contradict yourself and again show how you actually don't even read what you write.

 

 

Yes, Germany was hard pressed fighting on teo fronts, but they almost pulled it off, it was America entering the battle that broke Germany, like the straw that breaks the camels back. Even with that American troops still died in massive numbers, what you are hugo are doing is letting time dull the reality of just how close the fight was. You get your information from history books written by people with an agenda, get outside of the school books and go out there and look up how many troops dies and tell me again that we were not needed.

 

Read accounts like this one:

 

http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-7634.html

 

Try to learn reality instead of spouting off garbage hugo feeds you.

 

 

 

Hugo said that? Really?

 

+TJ, stop making stuff up. It makes you look kinda dumb.

 

And stop kissing azz on idiots like hugo just to try and get a 'team' together against me, that is all you are trying to do kid.

 

Even hear of the world semantics?

 

If I say I am against isolationist ideas, but I put into place every actions that is described in isolationist beliefs, what is the truth kid?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

 

 

"Isolationism" has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries.

 

The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one's economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

 

The only involvement hugo says he wants (he gets all of this from Ron Paul) with other Countries is trade, nothing else. This is Isolationism.

 

 

Yes, the French did help us, but not as much in the way you think.

 

Not as mush as "I" might think? How about more than you give them credit for so you can make up excuses to turn our backs on our friends and turn to Isolationism?

 

Without the help of France, America would not have gained our freedom, this is 100% fact and any other attempt to show it another way is childish.

 

 

 

If France had avoided "foreign entanglements" America would not exist as we now know it. It is easy to say to abandon the rest of the world but it is harder to look at the details of exactly what that means. As we found out in WW2, turning our backs and "minding our business" earned us Pearl Harbor. We lost twice as many troops and a massive amount of ships/equipment because we did turn our backs. If we had gotten involved early we could have stopped more than half the death and destruction everyone (including ourselves) experienced.

[jokersarewild]

It's not a lie, though.

 

Really? Let's look at your next post....

 

 

They died because Germans had to fight a war on two fronts. They still had to attempt to take over Europe, which is where we came in. If we hadn't shown up, they might've gotten Europe. Only problem is that to hold off Russia, you have to split your army between holding the occupied countries and fighting off Russia, who still had plenty of people to throw at the war. That's why you don't start fighting with Russia when you're fighting everyone else too.

 

It was a vcery close thing and you even admit that the Germans would have taken all of Europe so how can you say the Germans were already defeated if America was needed to stop him? You contradict yourself and again show how you actually don't even read what you write.

 

And they get Europe, then what? They have to go fight off Russia, just like I said. Stalin threw millions and millions of people into the war, and still had plenty more to kill. Then the Germans lose to Russia. I never once contradicted myself, Times. You just ignored the part of my post about having to continue to fight off Russia. Hitler would never have won the war.

 

Yes, Germany was hard pressed fighting on teo fronts, but they almost pulled it off, it was America entering the battle that broke Germany, like the straw that breaks the camels back. Even with that American troops still died in massive numbers, what you are hugo are doing is letting time dull the reality of just how close the fight was. You get your information from history books written by people with an agenda, get outside of the school books and go out there and look up how many troops dies and tell me again that we were not needed.

 

The war ended faster because we showed up. We weren't necessary to end it. Germany would've lost either way. Just because the dog still has fight in him and can get a few more good bites in doesn't mean he's not finished. It means he had one last go at it before death. But you're so blinded to your "America is Great!" patriotism that America being any less than "COMPLETELY NECESSARY" would break your little heart, so you have to believe that if we didn't show up, Hitler would've won.

 

Read accounts like this one:

 

http://www.leatherne...php/t-7634.html

 

Try to learn reality instead of spouting off garbage hugo feeds you.

 

By the spring of 1918, Europe lay in ruins.

 

Well, since that's World War 1, you kind of look like a dumbass. Nice source though. "Let me back up my WW2 statements with this WW1 story I probably never bothered to read! Marines are cool, lol!"

 

 

 

 

Actually, it even says you have to make your economy entirely self-reliant. If you're trading with other countries, you aren't. Don't argue semantics with me, Times. It seems to be your go-to argument for when you can't win an argument with facts. Your definition is RIGHT THERE, and Hugo said he wanted to trade with the world. That's not isolationism, your Wiki article says so.

 

Yes, the French did help us, but not as much in the way you think.

 

Not as mush as "I" might think? How about more than you give them credit for so you can make up excuses to turn our backs on our friends and turn to Isolationism?

 

Without the help of France, America would not have gained our freedom, this is 100% fact and any other attempt to show it another way is childish.

 

If France had avoided "foreign entanglements" America would not exist as we now know it. It is easy to say to abandon the rest of the world but it is harder to look at the details of exactly what that means. As we found out in WW2, turning our backs and "minding our business" earned us Pearl Harbor. We lost twice as many troops and a massive amount of ships/equipment because we did turn our backs. If we had gotten involved early we could have stopped more than half the death and destruction everyone (including ourselves) experienced.

 

 

Actually, Times, you have no clue what you're talking about at any point in time, it would appear.

 

Yes, the French did help us. I didn't say that they didn't. But they less "helped us win the war" as much as they "pissed Britain off to the point where they got annoyed and left".

 

Also, the whole "turning our back" thing? Wanna know why we were surprised about Pearl Harbor, Times? Because we were in Peace Talks with the Japanese at the time. They hadn't "turned their backs" as you say. They were trying to get Japan to ally with them and cut their ties to Germany and Italy. The Japanese said they wouldn't, and Pearl Harbor happened the same day they closed peace talks.

 

Not my definition of "turning our backs".

[jokersarewild]

 

And stop kissing azz on idiots like hugo just to try and get a 'team' together against me, that is all you are trying to do kid.

 

Even hear of the world semantics?

 

If I say I am against isolationist ideas, but I put into place every actions that is described in isolationist beliefs, what is the truth kid?

 

The only involvement hugo says he wants (he gets all of this from Ron Paul) with other Countries is trade, nothing else. This is Isolationism.

 

^^^That's supposed to be where the is in my last post.

 

Kept saying I had to enter a post, as if there was nothing there

[timesjoke]

As usual I didn't waste much time on your reply once you refused to admit America was needed to stop Hitler. Hitler had to expend resources and troops to Europe that could have been sent to beat Russia. The Russians barely won so without America entering WW2, Hitler wins Europe and those troops that were sent there to try and fight off the Americans would have been the deciding victory for Hitler to beat the Russians.

 

 

 

You and hugo sound like Obama with his "saved jobs" claims, you can't prove it and you making up outlandish claims anyone who studied the actual wars would know better. Europe would have lost without America, and even if Russia did win on their front, there would have been no reason Hitler would not have been able to withdraw and hold his European gains.

 

 

 

 

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

[hugo]

THE FACTS FROM A TRUE CONSERVATIVE, NOT A BUSH BIG SPENDING, DEBT LOVING CONSERVATIVE IN NAME ONLY.

 

An Unnecessary War?

11

 

Oct

by Patrick J. Buchanan – October 11, 1999

The Washington Post

 

In A Republic, Not An Empire, I take many controversial stands: Indicting Jefferson for naval disarmament, defending Polk’s war with Mexico, decrying U.S. annexation of the Philippines, and supporting Harding’s Washington naval treaty.

 

But all has been trampled under by the hysterical reaction to two assertions: That Britain’s war guarantee to Poland was a monumental blunder, and that after the Luftwaffe lost the Battle of Britain in 1940, Germany posed no strategic threat to the U.S.A.

 

Why was Britain’s war guarantee flawed? Because Britain had neither the will nor power to honor it. In 1939, only one nation could save Poland from Hitler: Russia. “Without Russia,” declared Lloyd George, “our [Polish] guarantees are the most reckless commitment any country has ever entered into. I say more, they are demented.”

 

By threatening war for Poland, Britain impelled Hitler to cut his deal with Stalin. Result: Annihilation of Poland, Stalin’s serial rape of Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as Hitler swallowed Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France.

 

By mid-1940 Hitler controlled Western Europe, Stalin Eastern Europe; and the British had been routed at Dunkirk and ensnared in a war that would cost 400,000 dead and bring down the empire.

 

Yet, Poland was not saved! What, then, did the war guarantee accomplish? And why would it have been immoral for Britain to re-direct Hitler’s attack away from the West, toward Stalin’s slave empire, and let the monsters eat each other up as Harry Truman urged?

 

Had Britain not declared war, Hitler would have attacked an unprepared Stalin in 1940. The result might well have been the liberation of the Gulag and its 12 million souls, the eradication of Bolshevism in Russia and China, no Cold War, no Korea, and no Vietnam. Instead of six years of World War II bloodletting, we may have seen six months of a Hitler-Stalin war, ending with one dead and the other crippled.

 

But, comes the cry, Hitler sought “world domination.” After Russia he would have seized Western Europe, Britain, and launched his final attack on us. But, would he? According to historian A. J. P. Taylor, “Eastern expansion was the primary purpose of Hitler’s policy, if not the only one.” To Labor Party statesman Roy Denman, “The fear that after Poland Hitler would have attacked Britain was an illusion….Britain was dragged into an unnecessary war.”

 

On August 11, 1939, Hitler had railed to the Danzig League of Nations commissioner: “Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend that, I will be forced to come to an understanding with the Russians, to smash the West, and then after its defeat, to turn against the Soviet Union…”

 

This, writes Henry A. Kissinger, “was certainly an accurate statement of Hitler’s priorities: from Great Britain, he wanted non-interference in Continental affairs, and from the Soviet Union, he wanted Lebensraum, or living space. It was a measure of Stalin’s achievement that he was about to reverse Hitler’s priorities…”

 

Yes, and an equal measure of Britain’s blunder.

 

Challenging my contention that the U.S. faced no strategic threat after 1940, critics cite Nazi plans for an “Amerika-Bomber.” Berlin, they say, had “embarked on a campaign to obtain bases in Africa and the Canary Islands as part of what… foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop called a ‘huge program…of an anti-American character.’”

 

But this is comic-book history. Not only did the Royal Air Force achieve superiority in 1940, the Royal Navy had never lost it, as the French learned, when Churchill ordered his ships to sink the French fleet at Mers el-Kebir in mid-1940, to keep it out of Hitler’s hands.

 

In November, 1940, the Italian fleet was smashed at Taranto. “By this single stroke,” exulted Churchill, “the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean was decisively altered.” In early ’41 Hitler’s mighty surface raider, Bismarck, was sunk on its maiden voyage; the Graf Spee had been scuttled off Montevideo in 1939.

 

By Pearl Harbor, Hitler was overextended and blocked at the Channel and Atlantic by the Royal Air Force and Navy, and at Moscow and Leningrad by the Red Army. By 1942, he was finished in Africa.

 

The idea that Hitler, with no surface navy or fleet of transport ships, no landing craft or seamen who had even served on a carrier, could construct in Africa or the Canary Islands ships to threaten the U,S., on the other side of an ocean the U.S. and British navies had ruled since Trafalgar is a proposition too absurd to require rebuttal.

 

Mr. Buchanan, author of A Republic, Not an Empire, is a candidate for President

[jokersarewild]

As usual I didn't waste much time on your reply once you refused to admit America was needed to stop Hitler. Hitler had to expend resources and troops to Europe that could have been sent to beat Russia. The Russians barely won so without America entering WW2, Hitler wins Europe and those troops that were sent there to try and fight off the Americans would have been the deciding victory for Hitler to beat the Russians.

 

"I didn't bother to read your response because it doesn't jive with my beliefs, so you must be wrong."

 

In the spirit of debate, I read everything you post. Makes you look bad when you admit to not reading everything because I don't agree with you.

 

Also, Russia would've won despite our help.

 

You and hugo sound like Obama with his "saved jobs" claims, you can't prove it and you making up outlandish claims anyone who studied the actual wars would know better. Europe would have lost without America, and even if Russia did win on their front, there would have been no reason Hitler would not have been able to withdraw and hold his European gains.

 

And you've obviously studied so many wars, right?

 

Well, since Russia still had plenty of fight left, and Germany made many, many strategic blunders, it's quite easy to figure out. Stalin didn't need strategy. He just threw people at it until it went away.

 

Germany wouldn't have been able to withdraw and hold Europe anyway. He didn't have the forces to do it anyway. However, Hitler was egotistical. He wanted Russia. He wouldn't have stopped.

 

And he would've lost.

 

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

[hugo]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

 

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

[jokersarewild]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

 

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

 

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

 

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

 

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

 

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

[hugo]

Modern isolationist policy includes allowing trade, and no other form of involvement, that is the point. Even Ron Paul is quoted as "trade, talk, but no troops" for any situation in the world no matter how bad. Ron Paul has said the only place American troops should be is on American soil, that there is never justification for sending troops anywhere else in the world. I admit, it "sounds" good, but the reality is we heve kept the peace and allowed for a level of prosperity and trade not possible any other way. Withdraw all troops from the world and there will be massive wars inside two years that will end all foreign trade as we know it. No oil, no production goods from China, and a real threat of nuclear winter because Israel will not go down without a fight.

 

I don't disagree with you. I was saying that what Hugo had posted didn't match your definition of "isolationism" that you posted.

You do not disagree with that moronic assessment? Please expalain to me how if America removed all its troops from foreign soil how that would end trade? How would that effect our trade with our leading trading partners Japan, China and Canada? Please explain? Please explain to me why there was so much trade even during WWII? TJ's theories are pure loony tunes. What do ya expect from someone who cannot understand the difference betwen wishing someone would not vote and mandating someone cannot vote? Please tell me why any of our troops should be anywhere in the world besides American soil and I will tell you why they should not.

 

What the hell is "modern isolationist policy"? Something the dumbass just made up. Isolationist policy means no interaction with other nations, including trade. Sad I have to explain that. Of course, I realize we have to re and reexplain very simple concepts when dealing with TJ. I expect more out of you JW. The Policy of GW (George Washington) ia all I have ever endorsed. A rational policy that puts America's interests as foreign policy's goal. Not engaging in other nation's civil wars. The Muslim world is full of whack jobs. Let them kill each other. South Korea can kick North Korea's ass. Let them do it. Who owns a few square miles of land in the Middle East does not effect US interests. Israel needs to stand on their owen two feet,

 

Calm your heels there, Hugo.

 

I guess I meant to say that I was neutral on that, since that wasn't what I was arguing about anyway. I was saying that he was trying to make stuff up.

 

And I do believe that we should play less of a role as "world protector". I do, however, see how if we pulled out of everywhere instantly, there could possibly be various wars starting, especially if they knew we wouldn't jump in on either side. Depending on which countries did what, I could easily see it affecting trade, especially if other countries stepped in to cause issues with those whom we trade with. It's not our responsibility to be the wall that stops countries from warring. That's their own job.

 

Also, Hugo, if you look at what my post said, I wasn't agreeing with his "modern isolationist policy" definition. I was calling it out for the bullshit it was.

The kind of answer you would expect from a communist.