Ailchinn wrote:I hate war, but having a strong defense means we fight on our terms, not theirs.
If you would, name the last
defensive military action performed by the United States. The size, scope and positioning of our forces denotes an offensive stance, and please, none of this "offense is defense" doublespeak. Pre-emption is aggression, not defense.
Ailchinn wrote:I don't want to wakeup to a PLA CSS-3 dropping MIRV'd nuke warheads on top of SF or KC.
Good point, the Chinese are damn sick of us fueling their economy through importation of goods and outsourcing of labor and manufacturing. The Chinese are new at this free market stuff, maybe we should advise them not to kill all their customers.
Ailchinn wrote:Nor do I want to turn on CNN and see an American embassy being stormed somewhere around the world and seeing nobody do anything...I happen to like having the ability to drop in a couple helos full of Marines, kick ass, and get our people out.
And we need an army of this size and equipment level to garrison and/or evacuate our embassies? Or do we need it to project power through military threat?
Ailchinn wrote:Peace has it's place, but I'll stick with the strong military option. Olive branches don't buy you time to live. Bullets do.
Bullshit. Creating and maintaining disparities in wealth and power makes you enemies and ensures your need to defend what only you have. Nobody ever started a war by extending an olive branch, -plenty have by rattling sabres.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.