Declare victory and GTFO of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar...

[JackRiddler]

There are also many bases in other countries and a few carrier groups that the world and the US taxpayer can do without. Here's the opportunity to start a historic shift in relations with South Asia and the world, and in our nation's insane spending priorities. What would it matter what the real details of the OBL killing are, if only this were the result?

Who's down with peace and spending on our people, for a change?




Here's a longer version of the same thought:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1011589

[TheKentuckian]

1. I'm with ya minus the carrier groups. I believe in walk softly and carry a big stick.

Even as we scale back bases and truly end wars we should maintain and expand our sea and air superiority.

[JackRiddler]

2. What is the function of this "sea and air superiority"?

To what end has it been put in the last four or five decades?

Why should a country have the capacity to set up a death star off the coast of any other country it designates an enemy?

Don't you think the US is in a position to initiate disarmament of all the major powers and an end to the global arms trade?

[TheKentuckian]

3. No, I don't think that we have the ability to disarm major powers and certainly not to end the arms

trade.

The purpose is the ability to project power anywhere in the world and deal devastating damage with minimal risk to US personnel.

I'm not a pacifist, I don't believe that we should disarm. I believe we should maintain and always expand our military superiority because it drastically increases the odds of success of conflicts and is a strong deterrence.

[JackRiddler]

4. One half of military spending & two thirds of the war armaments market is USA.

Military spending is a gigantic drag on economies, compared to the alternatives of investment in production and infrastructure.

The US is absolutely still in a position to convene disarmament conferences with agreed cutbacks on conventional and WMD systems among all participants. This is a great time to do it since there is no superpower confrontation comparable to the Cold War.

A few countries control the major armaments production and trade, with the US being the big player that profits the most. If there is to be an end to this, the initiative must come from the US. If others don't play along THEN, then we can blame them. Not before.

Tell me how this is justified:

"The purpose is the ability to project power anywhere in the world and deal devastating damage with minimal risk to US personnel."

What if China wants the same? What if Iran says, because of this American "purpose," they have the right to nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Why do you think the world wants to go along with the idea of an omnipotent US that can strike with dominance and minimal risk anywhere, including countries thousands of miles from the US that do not threaten it? Of course they will resist, after they saw what happened in 2003. No country should have this power, is the point. The world itself needs a different orientation. That's not "pacifist," it's rational. It's smart.

.

[TheKentuckian]

5. China can set up carrier groups and works toward all sorts of technological superiority

and that is what Iran does say.

I'm receptive to other nations adding battle groups, which would mean they could take more responsibility policing trade lanes.

So, I agree we should close bases, truly end our wars, reduce warheads, reduce troop levels, and reduce duplication to become leaner but I think we should maintain advantages.

Realistically, we can't get to where I want us to be. There is no shot in hell of convincing a majority that we need to disarm and scrap air and sea superiority. Keep pushing though, your position gives mine enough gravity to maybe get to be "moderate".

[JackRiddler]

7. That's correct. They could.

Your argument that they should is curious. Why shouldn't we all acknowledge that now it's one world and the era of war should end?

Trade routes can be protected without them. Their firepower has only the function of offensive attacks on countries. The investment is a waste in a world that badly needs to spend on human needs and new energy technologies.

Your majority unfortunately will be convinced soon enough. The hubris of world dominance is no longer sustainable. It is becoming financially, economically and technologically infeasible. The sooner we realize that, the better off we are.

[leftstreet]

6. 700+ US bases worldwide. Make 'em subsidized timeshares for the working classes!

Travel, excitement, meet new people

[JackRiddler]

8. That's a pretty wild idea.

Make them half into timeshare colonies, with the other half the residents local, and stick a small college in each one. America, meet the world. World, meet the Americans. On this basis, you might actually like each other, and find there's less need to maintain a capacity to nuke the shit out of everything so that you feel "safe."

[leftstreet]

10. I'm in !

:-)

[Modern_Matthew]

9. Sounds good to me. I was even for it before Osama's death. nt

[JackRiddler]

11. But here's the opportunity, for those who believe in multidimensional chess.

[Zorra]

12. But, but, who would protect multi-national corporate interests in the region?

Hugo Chavez? Evo Morales?

Our corporate masters will never allow this to happen.

As long as the majority of Americans remain under corporate MSM hypnosis, they will continue to elect republicans and centrist Democrats, and the US will continue to be the world police for wealthy private interests.

[Hosnon]

13. I'm with you there. My late WWII-vet grandfather thought we should just declare victory

and leave years ago.

[cali]

14. credit to George Aiken