And isn't it interesting how a bunch of anti-war leftists are now suddenly experts in military tactics?

Let's set aside your rather childish attempt to pigeonhole people who disagree with you into an ideological box. Where would you like to start with our discussion of military strategy? The Peloponnesian War? The Battle Of Thermopylae? (I have been reading Herodotus, so I have Greece very much on my mind). The Punic wars? Julian's campaigns in Gaul and Parthia? Let's have at it.

Take you time and do some Googling so you can sound informed when you get back to us...

I'm not sure who in particular you are referring to, but you have no evidence that proves that I am either "anti-war" or a "leftist"...that being said, exactly what qualifications do you possess to discuss military tactics...

I have several people in my immidiate family who are military and thereby any losses incurred would be quite personal indeed.

So the heavy lifting will be done by your relatives while your ass is safe at home. Got it. Don't let me stop you dude, grab your pom poms and cheer for war.

The troubling thing is that you really seem to be itching for a fight while reasonable people want that to be the absolute last option, when all other avenues have been exhausted.

Oh, wait.. isn't it Democrats who keep trying to silence the Military and void their votes?

You might want to show a bit more respect for those who have actually served. Oh, enjoy your next trip to the lake.

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.
1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.

Yea, we also heard that the Taliban had been destroyed. Guess that was a bit premature...

I'm sure you've seen by now James' posting on the subject. And Anjin, you've gotta stop trying to be an idiot. You're messing up your natural talent in the area. I have several people in my immidiate family who are military and thereby any losses incurred would be quite personal indeed.

If you're arguing that only those who have served should have the right to speak an opinion, fine, let's try that. Oh, wait.. isn't it Democrats who keep trying to silence the Military and void their votes?

"Nope" my ass...you originally stated that Obama was "anti-war"...when it pointed out to you that he isn't anti-war, but rather, anti-Iraq war, you move the goalposts and claim that he is incompetent becuase he didn't do enough in Pakistan...as for anything being above my head, you will forgive me if I am not the keen armchair military strategist that you apparently think youself to be...

Pakistan is an examle of Obama being anti-war, and a rather interesting example, particularly of what happens under such command.

And isn't it interesting how a bunch of anti-war leftists are now suddenly experts in military tactics?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2008ecb3-3d16-4240-86e0-5516f7e0caed

Interested Party... you forget about our troops in South Korea too. All those troops are just balance of power and defining western spheres of influence. I see nothing wrong with stationing troops around the world. The problems I see with the issues surrounding the original article have nothing to do with this president for sure. I would put the blame behind George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld for a terrible hand in putting forth goals and investing in manpower and technology in a very hamfisted way. We have further consolidated the defense industry, bounced around mission requirements, and funded many programs in an unnecessarily socialist way (cost+). Under Gates and Obama there appears to be some semblance of sense in regards to military funding and focus, but I don't see Obama backing down from being anti-defense or anti-military. I'm not seeing suicidally aggressive tendencies also, which is fine by me.

Australia just wants some new toys, lets not get too much in a huff here. They've been having a lot of internal discussion and been putting pressure on the US (like Israel) about whether or not to 'settle' with the F-35 instead of trying to get the export restrictions on the F-22 lifted. They also, rightly so, see their limitations in controlling their own part of the world or being active in any other conflicts they deem necessary. The defense paper is just using the US as one of the reasons to NOT skimp on military expenditures. I think this is a positive development. This attitude has NOTHING to do with Obama and has been in gestation long before he took office.

"Nope" my ass...you originally stated that Obama was "anti-war"...when it pointed out to you that he isn't anti-war, but rather, anti-Iraq war, you move the goalposts and claim that he is incompetent becuase he didn't do enough in Pakistan...as for anything being above my head, you will forgive me if I am not the keen armchair military strategist that you apparently think youself to be...

For all the sweat Obama was on about with Afghanistan, he neglected Pakistan... the ones with the Nukes. Great planner, this Obama. Foresees all eventualities."

What do you read? Almost none of this squares with what is written in mainline foreign policy journals. Saddam mostly financed local terrorists, if you want t call them that. A lot of it was directed towards Iran. Maybe some towards Israel. It was not a focus of his, more like protection money. In particular, he had no real connections with AQ.

Afghanistan did go wanting. Essentially everyone who writes on Afghanistan notes that we did not provide enough attention. The Taliban has reasserted itself in much of the country. AQ? It was not really a local actor per se in Afghanistan. It will work with the Taliban to meet its own needs. They are safer in Pakistan. Speaking of which, Pakistan has been at the top of the agenda for quite a while now in case you have not noticed. I thought it was one of the reasons he picked Jones for the NSA. Heck, he just had Karzai and Zardari over for talks.

On Australia, since I follow them a bit, my sense is that they are very aware of China's growth. China is increasing military expenditures. It made sense for Australia to rely upon the US when China had essentially no Navy. That is changing. The US is committed all over the world. They have seen how much of a commitment it takes to conduct COIN operations. Our military is stretched thin. Given those realities, they are rationally deciding to increase their capabilities.

Steve

You will perhaps not have heard that AQ is no longer operating in Afghanistan

Yea, we also heard that the Taliban had been destroyed. Guess that was a bit premature...

2003: "In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban." GW Bush

2004: "As a result of the United States military, the Taliban is no longer in existence." GW Bush

Yea, maybe getting Bin Laden and Mullah Omar would have been a good thing after all...

I've noticed you seem to have a great interest in my penis. Why is that?

Bit, you are the one talking about nads here, so please.

It is very clear that you are into having OTHER men (and women) risking their lives because you like the idea that America is a badass. Have you every put your life on the line for freedom? Or are you just going to keep talking up war and let others do the dirty work while you take the boat to the lake?

There is a certain type of man who feels that the more aggressive the US is militarily, the more they can somehow compensate for a lack of the above mentioned type of mass that nature just seems to have shorted them on.

I've noticed you seem to have a great interest in my penis. Why is that?

Oh, you mean like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

Well, that would be a start. Then again, I call the money being spent keeping the UAW afloat social spending, as well.

That is a lie...

Nope.
And even if it was, shall we examine what the Democrat party as a whole has been saying for forever?

That is a lie...Obama has always talked about the need to finish what we started in Afghanistan, because that war is directly related to what happened to us on 9/11, unlike the disaster in Iraq...

Iraq had much to do with terrorism. Nor did Afghanistan go wanting. You will perhaps not have heard that AQ is no longer operating in Afghanistan. How do you suppose that happened so quickly, eh?

For all the sweat Obama was on about with Afghanistan, he neglected Pakistan... the ones with the Nukes. Great planner, this Obama. Foresees all eventualities.

Why do we need over 30,000 troops in Japan, almost 60,000 troops in Germany, and almost 10,000 each in Italy and the UK...

Several reasons. Most of which are apparently above you. Logistics, mostly. Consider that for example it's a far shorter hop to Germany from the middle east, and anywhere near the EU for that matter, than it is from stateside.

Consider also, that we're still dealing with China, and Russia... both of which will undoubtedly get ideas of expansion absent our presence there.

And again, Military expenditures are constitutionally mandated. Social spending is not.

it's down to whether not we had the testicular mass to maintain that level of military

There is a certain type of man who feels that the more aggressive the US is militarily, the more they can somehow compensate for a lack of the above mentioned type of mass that nature just seems to have shorted them on. Most of these types have never been within a country mile of the messy and dangerous business of actual combat, but lord, they do talk a good game...

Obama also cautioned against a US intervention in Iran,

Hmmm. Well that would make him.... smart. Imagine that, a President who is cautious about the idea of action that could touch off a general war in the middle east possibly starting WW3. Obama is cautious about starting wars? What a bastard!

Lets hear the words of Eisenhower on the subject of "preventative war":
"I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further."

But I am sure you know far more about war and national security that Gen. Eisenhower did.

I'm calling for dramatic cuts in social(ist) spending, to pay for what we should have been supporting instead all along; the Military

Yes, because America is all about war, and nothing else.

You are pretty hot for war dude. Joining up soon to lead the fight? Or will you just follow the chickenhawk road?

Not anti-Iraq war.
Anti-war. Period.

Flat out BS. You might buy into Hannity's crap about Obama "gutting the military" but then you have always been gullible.

Be aware, they will be challenged. frothing rants may ensue

Fixed that for you.

Oh boy, were to begin...

I'm calling for dramatic cuts in social(ist) spending...

Oh, you mean like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Good luck with that...even though someone like you might think of these things as "socialist" programs that need to cut, that view is in the minority and no Congress and President will do that anytime soon...

Not anti-Iraq war.
Anti-war. Period.

That is a lie...Obama has always talked about the need to finish what we started in Afghanistan, because that war is directly related to what happened to us on 9/11, unlike the disaster in Iraq...

OK, I'll bite. Suggest specifics.

Why do we need over 30,000 troops in Japan, almost 60,000 troops in Germany, and almost 10,000 each in Italy and the UK...

Sounds like you are calling for an increase in your taxes bit. Good for you, pitching in and all.

No.

I'm calling for dramatic cuts in social(ist) spending, to pay for what we should have been supporting instead all along; the Military... it being the one of the two that has the advantage of actually being constitutionally mandated. Which brings me to the other point:

Which is, of course, quite, quite different from your bald assertion that he ran on an antiwar platform

DURHAM, N.H. -- Senator Barack Obama of Illinois brought a strong antiwar message yesterday to New Hampshire, winning enthusiastic applause from audiences in Nashua and Durham who said they were tired of the unpopular war and eager to find a candidate who would get the country out of it.

"We are now in the midst of a war that never should have been authorized, never should have been waged," Obama told a crowd of close to 3,000 packed into the gymnasium at the University of New Hampshire. "Unless we bring that war to a close, we cannot deal with those other problems I just mentioned," such as education and healthcare, Obama added, his words nearly drowned out by the wild applause that followed his denouncement of the war.

Obama also cautioned against a US intervention in Iran, saying he was skeptical of reports by the Bush administration that Iran is helping to supply weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

"I don't doubt that there are some weapons coming over from Iran into Iraq. I have no doubt Iran has a history of sponsoring terrorism and doing mischief," Obama said. But "I am less persuaded by what we're seeing over the last couple of weeks, and that is that the intervention of Iran into Iraq somehow justifies what seems to be a mounting case for intervention or even forays into Iran," he said, drawing applause.

Not anti-Iraq war.
Anti-war. Period.

And this statement from Obama also shows us the priorities he has in mind... socialist spending over Defense. Totally out of line of course with what the Constitution dictates, but beyond even that, a reckless abandonment of defense.

Is 3% sufficient? I don't know, nor do you. But what we both do know is that it is still a lot of money.

I've already rejected the GDP as a measurement, given our current situation, sam, as well as historical ones. I'll give you another example... We came off a depression going into WWII. Leaving aside for the moment the argument about the war itself being the reason the depression ended, I daresay incidental to te depression the GDP was far lower than average. Would the GDP have been a fair measurement, under those conditions? Obviously not.

So, the argument of 3 or 4 or 10% of a variable is arguing over shadows.

Or we maybe could just be wiser in our commitments.

OK, I'll bite. Suggest specifics.
Be aware, they will be challenged.