Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 5:58:57 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		"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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 5:59:55 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 6:48:44 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
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.







< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 2/28/2015 6:51:11 AM >

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 6:51:50 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


Because Guam's employment situation is the responsibility of the Citizens of Guam.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 8:13:59 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
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.


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?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 2:02:15 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas - 2/28/2015 2:50:54 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 107
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Threat to the Mall of the Americas Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078