Comments on: A smaller America could be a stronger America

By: jfxwsr

jfxwsr — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:53:00 +0000

Great article, and it’s extremely important that Americans come to understand the degree to which they have been misled by the military/industrial complex – so presciently diagnosed by President Eisenhower – and its own vision of “manifest destiny” gone wild.

I have found it very helpful in life to work with people as a friend, and never a bully. While we have done good things, and our efforts in ex-Yugoslavia were appropriate, most our other uses of force in the last twenty years were just plain wrong.

By: blacktryst

blacktryst — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:50:28 +0000

First of all, just because the Author’s name sounds different does not mean he is Arabic. Second, his view makes sense. All corporations know that downsizing is the name of the game to become leaner and more efficient. What the author is suggesting is that if America realize that its golden age is over and start triming its fat by becoming smaller militarily and shedding its egotistical view of superpower status, America can remain a superpower still by virtue of its becoming more efficient and becoming less burdened by debt and thus remain very influential in the economic, political circles. Right now, because of its economic woes and political division, America has becom a laughing stock in the developed world and a running joke in the developing world. Investors point to Italy and Spain and even Greece for their faults of accumulating huge debts. But American debt dwarves all those countries debts put together. The only reason why America stayed afloat is because it kept printing money and by countries such as Japan, China and even Russia buying up American bonds. Please give some actual thought to what this article is trying to say rather than bashing it in the face just because the Author’s name is not western sounding and the view expressed is different from the mainstream.

By: Bagwa

Bagwa — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:49:59 +0000

There is no American Empire.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 06:52:38 +0000

ConstFundie, the argentinian army barely fought, with a few notable exceptions the army mostly surrendered when the British turned up. Their airforce was “unlucky” to have missed some more of the boats with exocets.

In Korea and Vietnam, the allies were facing an enemy fighting a total war. In Iraq, the allies lost 4,000 troops in 8 years as opposed to 255 in just over a month of fighting. From recollection, Afghanistan is an even lower casualty rate.

By: ConstFundie

ConstFundie — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:13:15 +0000

To Danny_Black,

England completely decimated Argentina, even though the UK was attacked by surprise and thousands of miles from the UK, and 200 ish miles from Argentina. Further, the US had NO involvement in that war except for logistical support. Tell me how many US troops were killed? 0

Are you saying that the UK’s efforts were laughable because their ‘tiny’ budgeted military defeated Argentina within a few months. They lost 255 people according to the wiki, how does that compare to our decade + wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

My point is that Western Europe is not in danger of invasion. Russia was recently caught feeding some of their army dog food for crying out loud. Surely, you do not believe that Russia could mount a successful invasion of France, Germany, or the UK. Russia’s defense spending is 53b, which is less than UK or FR.

IMO, the greatest danger to the free world nations is currently socio-economic in origin.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:25:00 +0000

Lambick, the US foreign influence is being reduced because it is currently run by a team ideologically determined to reduce said influence. Hence the phrase “lead from behind” which sounds perfectly sane to someone who buys into a constrained US being better for the world.

The author of this piece used to work for the UN, in particular he worked for a scumbag who presided over 4 genocides during a time when there was a US president who also was pragmatically inclined to ignore foreign affairs, until they intruded on him.

By: Lambick

Lambick — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:13:19 +0000

Surprising how often discussions turn sour when Israel is mentioned. The issue at hand is that the U.S. is having its foreign influence reduced due to a waning economy and just can’t get used to it.

By: Danny_Black

Danny_Black — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:29:30 +0000

xcanada2, I’ll take that as the closest you’ll come to admitting that Israel doesn’t in fact lord it over a majority non-jewish land.

Stick to spouting nonsense to similarly clueless people and then you can safely avoid the facts.

By: Genrule

Genrule — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:09:48 +0000

Are you kidding me! While there is no arguing that US defense spending has been on the rise it pales in comparison to domestic entitlement programs that coddle it’s citizens with every conceivable “right”. Strategic involvement and defense of US interests is not the reason for American financial ills. Gap between rich and poor…please….go visit India for a look at a gap between the rich and poor.

By: revisinator

revisinator — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:48:29 +0000

The article is, of course, agreeing with everything Ron Paul has been saying for decades, and people say he’s radical? Sensible is more like it. The only reason some people throw derogatives at Dr. Paul is because they’d rather buy into the media slander than bother to do the research.