RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas

RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 5:58:57 AM)
"I absolutely believe we should pull our troops back home, and close our foreign bases. I've been an unabashed supporter of that for years now" I think that was one of the major (of course there were more) in the last presidential election between ron paul and the other candidates. I think rand paul is not as isolationist as his father is but it will be interesting to see to what extent this topic comes up during the primary.

Zonie63 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 5:59:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech On Guam... the base in Guam is mainly a resupply and refueling point for our military transiting tropical Pacific Ocean waters. The airfield and docks are mainly resupply points. A lot like the base in Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) it is mainly a secure resupply point. The last time I was in Guam was 1984. At that time there were only two sources for jobs on the island; the resupply base, and a ritzy Japanese owned resort. The only things open out in town after 5pm were a MacDonald's and a single strip club and bar. Do we currently have a need for that? Shutter it, and bring it back up when it's needed. The employment situation on Guam is not ours to solve. It's also, apparently, could be in jeopardy of tipping over. Why wouldn't Guam's employment situation be a responsibility of the United States? I can see the point about closing US bases on foreign soil, but Guam isn't foreign soil. Guam is US soil. And yes, we certainly don't want it to tip over or capsize. [:D]

Zonie63 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 6:48:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Not saying that I either totally agree or totally disagree but would not the solution be to pull our troops home from every country, push the UN out of NYC, discontinue our treaties with all countries and go into a world of isolation? Just asking because I don't think it would work. If we did it gradually and incrementally, it might work out. It wouldn't actually mean "isolation," though. Strictly speaking, the US was never actually "isolationist," but rather, we were neutral. We still had treaties, diplomatic ties, commerce, and communication with other nations; we just didn't tie ourselves militarily to any other government. We still wanted friendly ties and good relations with all nations, but we didn't play favorites or take sides with one nation against another nation. We don't have to be isolated - just neutral. Of course, if we don't want to pull out of the world completely, there might be a middle path, such as only limiting ourselves to direct defense of NATO and/or OAS countries. This way, it could made illegal for the US to station any troops or bases in any territory that is not a member of our permanent treaty organizations. Another possibility is that we can actually live up to our oft-repeated slogan of "defending freedom" and "making the world safe for democracy." If this is actually true, then I can't see that there would be any objection to limiting our treaties and alliances with only those governments which are as free the United States. If we use Freedom House's rating system as our standard (requiring a freedom index no higher than 1.0), then a lot of countries would have to be excluded from our global alliance system, including Israel (freedom index = 1.5) Turkey (3.5), South Korea (2.0) - among others. (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are totally out of the question.) If the interventionists insist that it's America's job to defend freedom in this world, then let's hold them to that. If a country's government is not as free as ours, then they don't deserve to be defended.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 6:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech On Guam... the base in Guam is mainly a resupply and refueling point for our military transiting tropical Pacific Ocean waters. The airfield and docks are mainly resupply points. A lot like the base in Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) it is mainly a secure resupply point. The last time I was in Guam was 1984. At that time there were only two sources for jobs on the island; the resupply base, and a ritzy Japanese owned resort. The only things open out in town after 5pm were a MacDonald's and a single strip club and bar. Do we currently have a need for that? Shutter it, and bring it back up when it's needed. The employment situation on Guam is not ours to solve. It's also, apparently, could be in jeopardy of tipping over. Why wouldn't Guam's employment situation be a responsibility of the United States? I can see the point about closing US bases on foreign soil, but Guam isn't foreign soil. Guam is US soil. And yes, we certainly don't want it to tip over or capsize. [:D] Because Guam's employment situation is the responsibility of the Citizens of Guam.

Zonie63 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 8:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech On Guam... the base in Guam is mainly a resupply and refueling point for our military transiting tropical Pacific Ocean waters. The airfield and docks are mainly resupply points. A lot like the base in Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) it is mainly a secure resupply point. The last time I was in Guam was 1984. At that time there were only two sources for jobs on the island; the resupply base, and a ritzy Japanese owned resort. The only things open out in town after 5pm were a MacDonald's and a single strip club and bar. Do we currently have a need for that? Shutter it, and bring it back up when it's needed. The employment situation on Guam is not ours to solve. It's also, apparently, could be in jeopardy of tipping over. Why wouldn't Guam's employment situation be a responsibility of the United States? I can see the point about closing US bases on foreign soil, but Guam isn't foreign soil. Guam is US soil. And yes, we certainly don't want it to tip over or capsize. [:D] Because Guam's employment situation is the responsibility of the Citizens of Guam. Does that mean that the employment situation in, say, Cleveland is only the responsibility of the citizens of Cleveland and no one else?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 2:02:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Why wouldn't Guam's employment situation be a responsibility of the United States? I can see the point about closing US bases on foreign soil, but Guam isn't foreign soil. Guam is US soil. And yes, we certainly don't want it to tip over or capsize. [:D] Because Guam's employment situation is the responsibility of the Citizens of Guam. Does that mean that the employment situation in, say, Cleveland is only the responsibility of the citizens of Cleveland and no one else? It's not the responsibility of anyone but those in Cleveland, or those who wish to do business in Cleveland. Regardless, it isn't the responsibility of government to provide for employment, except for carrying out the authorities of government.

bounty44 -> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas (2/28/2015 2:50:54 PM)
concerning the last two posts: thats a good illustration of one of the fundamental differences between left and right---federal vs local control and government intervention vs personal initiative. you can see then how it makes it tough for the sides to talk with each other, our values aren't the same.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875