How to decrease military spending.

[FromTheSouth]

The United States currently spends $711 billion a year on military spending, which is 48% of all world wide military spending.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/military-spending-worldwide/

So, I came across someone's plan to cut military spending.


1. Mind our own business. We cannot police the world. There is no need for it. We do not need to maintain the Korean borders, we are not needed in Japan. We need to come home. The time where we are making the world safe for democracy is over. This is a time where we need to make America safe for Americans.

2. The enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. The American government is all too eager to jump into bed with shady governments, such as those in Saudi Arabia, just because they are less bad than the Irans and North Koreas of the world. What kind of sense does this make? We spend billions putting bases in these nations to protect our oil. Well, if we could open up our own reserves, these billions in expenses would not be necessary.

3. Nothing is OK if we abandon our principles and values. We went into Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban and destroy Al Quaeda. Instead, we decided to go in and stop the drug trade, go to war in Iraq, and our mission got completely convoluted. Now, we have spent nearly a trillion dollars on wars that didn't necessarily need to be spent.

4. Don't screw with us. We need to strike feat into the hearts of the world. In the 80's, an attack against the US was unimaginable except from one source, the USSR. They were thought of as being on our level. Now, there is no one on our level as far as military power goes, but the likelihood of an attack seems higher. 9/11 happened, and two plane bombers almost did. The idea of having to deal with the US is not as intimidating as it used to be, and this is because our military is spread out around the world instead of being at home minding our business. Basically, the best way to save money is to make our military so intimidating that we don't need to use it.

5. When we fight, we fight to win. While Obama tells the world of his plan to reduce our arsenal, I would display it. This goes to the point above, but our enemies need to know that if they are going to engage us, that no military option is off the table. Instead of conducting war in the quite nice manner we have been pigeonholed into, we need to eliminate the enemy and leave.

6. When it's over, leave. No more nation building. We are a republic, not an empire. We do not need to make nations in our image. We do not need to rebuild nations. If we follow step one, and mind our own business, then there would be no need to rebuild nations. We would be destroying places that provoked or attacked us. Fuck em. Let them rebuild their own nation. They need to understand that part of provoking the US is getting your own house back in order.


Now, what this plan promises is that we do not need to spread troops all over the world in concerns that are not our own. Ron Paul would be proud. Our military is here for our defense. Our military is here to protect us, not to protect the South Koreans or the Japanese.

Now, who else could give us such an amazing plan but your favorite and mine, Glenn Beck.

I love this idea. It returns to traditional Republican values of protecting the Republic rather than subscribing to the neocon idealism that leads to an imperialistic campaign that we might not lose, but can never truly win.

 

[klunderbunker]

Agree except for number 5.

The thing about the nuclear arsenal, which is the only one that Obama wanted to lower, is that we flat out don't need them and they're not osmething you want to have anyway. There is no need for them. The ground troops, when motivated unlike they are now in their two current missions, are more or less unbeatable. Couple that with the Air Force/Marines and Navy if applicable and there is no one that could beat us. Nukes are a very last resort and the outcome of one being used could hardly ever justify the use of one.

Other than that though, I have very few problems with this plan on paper. And that's the thing: so many plans are fine on paper. Now I would love to go with most of these idea, especially #6, but that rarely works. It should be that way, but it rarely works.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The nuclear example is just the most prevalent example. I could just as easily have stated that shock and awe must be the first move we make in any future conflict. We need to eliminate transportation, communication, and infrastructure immediately, and then destroy the opponents military. If they can't move, and the can't speak, then they can't win.

Using the nuclear weapons example was nothing more than a bit of hyperbole to get the point across that playing nice and winning wars do not go together.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Firstly, I am not American, so if that discounts my opinion in your eyes for whatever reason, that's unfortunate.

1. Mind our own business. We cannot police the world. There is no need for it. We do not need to maintain the Korean borders, we are not needed in Japan. We need to come home. The time where we are making the world safe for democracy is over. This is a time where we need to make America safe for Americans.

Agreed.

2. The enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. The American government is all too eager to jump into bed with shady governments, such as those in Saudi Arabia, just because they are less bad than the Irans and North Koreas of the world. What kind of sense does this make? We spend billions putting bases in these nations to protect our oil. Well, if we could open up our own reserves, these billions in expenses would not be necessary.

The enemy of your enemy might share your beliefs and interests, and are therefore valuable allies. If you simply mean helping the lesser of two evils, I agree that neither should be engaged with, unless it's a necessity. There are international interests however, such as oil, and therefore this idea could be followed completely.

3. Nothing is OK if we abandon our principles and values. We went into Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban and destroy Al Quaeda. Instead, we decided to go in and stop the drug trade, go to war in Iraq, and our mission got completely convoluted. Now, we have spent nearly a trillion dollars on wars that didn't necessarily need to be spent.

Agreed

4. Don't screw with us. We need to strike feat into the hearts of the world. In the 80's, an attack against the US was unimaginable except from one source, the USSR. They were thought of as being on our level. Now, there is no one on our level as far as military power goes, but the likelihood of an attack seems higher. 9/11 happened, and two plane bombers almost did. The idea of having to deal with the US is not as intimidating as it used to be, and this is because our military is spread out around the world instead of being at home minding our business. Basically, the best way to save money is to make our military so intimidating that we don't need to use it.

OK, this is where you lose me. Why does the USA need to strike fear in others? The USA shouldn't be focused on making sure that every one knows how badly they would annihilated if they attacked, they should focus on ensuring that there is no reason to attack the USA.

The inherent problem that the USA is having with terrorism right now is that it's militant groups spread across multiple countries that are attacking. There is no simple solution like in WWII, where defeating the German nation was the priority. Terrorists are not afraid of attacking the USA, there is no easy way to retaliate, no matter how large or terrifying the USA's army is.

5. When we fight, we fight to win. While Obama tells the world of his plan to reduce our arsenal, I would display it. This goes to the point above, but our enemies need to know that if they are going to engage us, that no military option is off the table. Instead of conducting war in the quite nice manner we have been pigeonholed into, we need to eliminate the enemy and leave.

Once again, you are not fighting a single nation or entity. Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where the USA is not afraid of using nuclear weapons, and there would be no fallout from other countries for having using said weapons. An attack comes terrorists in Pakistan, what do you do? Drop a nuclear missile on Pakistan? Wage full-out war on Pakistan? The USA needs to improve their world-image, away from the world bully you are suggesting they maintain and flaunt, and towards a peacekeeping nation that is motivated by compassion.

6. When it's over, leave. No more nation building. We are a republic, not an empire. We do not need to make nations in our image. We do not need to rebuild nations. If we follow step one, and mind our own business, then there would be no need to rebuild nations. We would be destroying places that provoked or attacked us. Fuck em. Let them rebuild their own nation. They need to understand that part of provoking the US is getting your own house back in order.

This is the attitude that has landed the USA in to hot water originally. The world's image of the USA is not a kind one. The USA are seen as bullies and instigators. That's not the say that terrorist attacks are condoned or warranted, but the American people need to realize that terrorists have motives for attacking the USA other than that they are jealous and pure-evil; that's a cop out.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Firstly, I am not American, so if that discounts my opinion in your eyes for whatever reason, that's unfortunate.

It's not your country of origin that makes me discount your opinion.

OK, this is where you lose me. Why does the USA need to strike fear in others?

Because most of the world is pegged to the US currency, and an attack on us causes ripples throughout the entire world economy. Keeping other nations in fear keeps them at bay. Furthermore, our place in the world makes us the most likely to face aggression. Deterrence seems as good of an answer as first strike, which is our current policy.

The USA shouldn't be focused on making sure that every one knows how badly they would annihilated if they attacked, they should focus on ensuring that there is no reason to attack the USA.

There was no reason to attack us on 9/11, but I digress. Did you read the rest of the post, or just decide to attack pragmatism with idealism? The first part of the post was all about minding our own business and stopping protecting the rest of the world. It's an all inclusive plan, but you seem to be trying to denigrate it by going piece by piece. That makes no sense to me.

The inherent problem that the USA is having with terrorism right now is that it's militant groups spread across multiple countries that are attacking. There is no simple solution like in WWII, where defeating the German nation was the priority.

Sure there is. Putting their leadership's dead bodies on television would convince a segment of them to rethink their place in the world. Furthermore, under this doctrine of "fighting to win" we could go house to house and root a large percentage of them out.

Terrorists are not afraid of attacking the USA, there is no easy way to retaliate, no matter how large or terrifying the USA's army is.

Sure there is. Kill them all. Get information on where to find them and then go kill them. If someone is hiding terrorists, kill them too.

Once again, you are not fighting a single nation or entity. Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario where the USA is not afraid of using nuclear weapons, and there would be no fallout from other countries for having using said weapons. An attack comes terrorists in Pakistan, what do you do? Drop a nuclear missile on Pakistan? Wage full-out war on Pakistan?

You took the nuclear thing way too literally. If the Pakistani government is not interested in helping us, then we should walk in like we own the place, find the people responsible, kill them, and leave. We should fill every cave in Pakistan and Afghanistan full of teargas and shoot everyone who comes out.

The USA needs to improve their world-image, away from the world bully you are suggesting they maintain and flaunt, and towards a peacekeeping nation that is motivated by compassion.

No we shouldn't. Give me one reason why we should be a peacekeeping force? Nations should keep peace in their own countries, and if they can't, then it's not our problem. The USA needs to kill everyone who has an inkling to attack us and then return home and let the rest of the world hash out their own problems. The reason we are being attacked is because we are being a "peacekeeping" force throughout the world. We should only be worried about our own peacefulness. You should let your country go be the peacekeeping force for a while. See what thanks you get.

This is the attitude that has landed the USA in to hot water originally. The world's image of the USA is not a kind one.

So? Frankly, I could give a shit what the rest of the world thinks of us. If you have a problem, try your luck, if not, keep enjoying McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Batman, and Snickers and shut the fuck up.

The USA are seen as bullies and instigators.

Such a shame, considering that we are the only nation who ever risks the lives of our soldiers in Africa to feed people, or Bosnia to save lives. We should stop those actions, let those people kill each other, and keep our people alive.

That's not the say that terrorist attacks are condoned or warranted, but the American people need to realize that terrorists have motives for attacking the USA other than that they are jealous and pure-evil; that's a cop out.

Jealousy, evil, and Israel. Well, we're not changing our way of lives to appease a bunch of terrorists or Europeans. In all honesty, neither group is important enough to change for. We were attacked over Israel, which we have an obligation to considering the way the British completely abandoned them and left them there to be the victims of yet another Jewish genocide. Way to go Britain!

 

[SalvIsWin]

Sure there is. Putting their leadership's dead bodies on television would convince a segment of them to rethink their place in the world. Furthermore, under this doctrine of "fighting to win" we could go house to house and root a large percentage of them out.

Flaunting the dead bodies of high ranking terrorists on television isn't going to do anything positive for the United States. You second suggestion of going door to door is absurd. If a terrorist attack comes Pakistan, you're suggesting that the USA invades Pakistan and goes door to door?

Sure there is. Kill them all. Get information on where to find them and then go kill them. If someone is hiding terrorists, kill them too.

There's many problems with this. Saying 'kill them all' is about as much of a solution as just saying, 'deal with the problem', you're giving no insight as to how this would work at all. Again I ask, what is your suggestion, to invade countries that terrorists are living in and kill suspected terrorists?

You took the nuclear thing way too literally. If the Pakistani government is not interested in helping us, then we should walk in like we own the place, find the people responsible, kill them, and leave. We should fill every cave in Pakistan and Afghanistan full of teargas and shoot everyone who comes out.

This would be sociopathic behaviour. Firstly, you cannot just invade a country. There are rules of war, which you seemingly do not understand. Terrorists hate the United States because the USA has been intervening and occupying the middle-east for the a long time now. You can either believe that, which is also the reason Osama Bin Laden himself stated, or you choose to believe that Bin Laden is jealous of American freedom and liberty.

My point is that if the USA were to do what you're suggesting, that would perpetuate the exact reasons terrorists attacked the United States to begin with. I'm not condoning the actions of terrorists, or the logic that they use, or the solution that they came up with, but it's ignorant to not understand the reasons.

So? Frankly, I could give a shit what the rest of the world thinks of us. If you have a problem, try your luck, if not, keep enjoying McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Batman, and Snickers and shut the fuck up.

You're responding 'So?' when I comment that your policy would perpetuate the very acts that got USA in to this mess? I know you don't give a shit, and I find that disturbing. The only solace to be had is that many others are seemingly coming around to a more Liberal POV.

Such a shame, considering that we are the only nation who ever risks the lives of our soldiers in Africa to feed people, or Bosnia to save lives. We should stop those actions, let those people kill each other, and keep our people alive.

Incredible. The USA is the only country that risks soldiers or supplies aid to other countries? Let's take a look at aid giving by country for the Haiti disaster:

CANADA: $130 million in aid pledged. So far, Canadians have privately contributed more than $39 million and Ottawa will match those funds. Some 2,000 military personnel, including two warships.

UNITED STATES: $130 million in aid, according to USAID. Has sent about 12,000 military personnel so far, 265 government medical personnel, 18 Navy and Coast Guard ships, 49 helicopters and seven cargo planes to assist in aid delivery, support and evacuations. Is managing operations at the Port-au-Prince airport.
Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/754400

Consider the population difference of 30 million to 300 million I would say that my own country has done quite well in contributing worldwide to humanitarian effort, so don't act like the USA is the only country that does anything.

Jealousy, evil, and Israel. Well, we're not changing our way of lives to appease a bunch of terrorists or Europeans. In all honesty, neither group is important enough to change for. We were attacked over Israel, which we have an obligation to considering the way the British completely abandoned them and left them there to be the victims of yet another Jewish genocide. Way to go Britain!

I've responded to this basic point above, which is the motive for attacking the USA and the necessity for United States to change.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Flaunting the dead bodies of high ranking terrorists on television isn't going to do anything positive for the United States. You second suggestion of going door to door is absurd. If a terrorist attack comes Pakistan, you're suggesting that the USA invades Pakistan and goes door to door?

We showed the dead bodies of Hussein's sons, and Iraqis stopped fighting. After that, we were fighting Iranians and Syrians. We hung Sadaam, and the government, including the Sunnis, came together.

Not every house in the entire country. You need to learn about things like context and hyperbole. We know where to find people. We know the areas they live in. We can find whoever we are looking for. Look at the example of Sadr City. We went door to door in Sadr City, eradicated the bad element, found Al-Sadr, and closed out the area. If you haven't noticed, we won in Iraq, and we did so by going door to door in the areas where that was needed. The only thing absurd is your constantly implying that the US somehow deserves what happened. What is absurd is that you think we need to change.

There's many problems with this. Saying 'kill them all' is about as much of a solution as just saying, 'deal with the problem', you're giving no insight as to how this would work at all. Again I ask, what is your suggestion, to invade countries that terrorists are living in and kill suspected terrorists?

I already gave the example of Sadr City, and honestly, most of Iraq, where we won by going door to door.

This would be sociopathic behaviour. Firstly, you cannot just invade a country.

Sure we can. We did. We can do it again. I hope Canada is next.

There are rules of war, which you seemingly do not understand.

Rules only exist where there is an enforcement mechanism, and since we comprise about 135% of the troops that the UN actually deploys, the rules don't apply. But, you're completely missing the point of the post. The point is that we keep to ourselves and only use the military to defend our shores and our people. I have no idea how we got onto this tangent, but I assure you, if we didn't police the world no one would. Who are we going to rely on? Canada? Psshhhh.

Terrorists hate the United States because the USA has been intervening and occupying the middle-east for the a long time now.

Which is why I propose we leave and don't come back. Did you even read the fucking original post or are you just on here to rant against America? If that's your goal, get the fuck out of here. If you would like to discuss the original post fine.

You can either believe that, which is also the reason Osama Bin Laden himself stated, or you choose to believe that Bin Laden is jealous of American freedom and liberty.

Did I ever, at any point, say that it had nothing to do with our being in other countries? Wait a minute......

2. The enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend. The American government is all too eager to jump into bed with shady governments, such as those in Saudi Arabia, just because they are less bad than the Irans and North Koreas of the world. What kind of sense does this make? We spend billions putting bases in these nations to protect our oil. Well, if we could open up our own reserves, these billions in expenses would not be necessary.

I already said we need to go. What the fuck is your point?

My point is that if the USA were to do what you're suggesting, that would perpetuate the exact reasons terrorists attacked the United States to begin with. I'm not condoning the actions of terrorists, or the logic that they use, or the solution that they came up with, but it's ignorant to not understand the reasons.

OK, so you're a terrorist sympathizer. Cool with me. I am glad that you are so worldly and knowledgable that you can justify flying a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. That's great. Instead of attacking the military or declaring a war, they killed thousands of innocent civilians. I am glad that you sympathize with that. From reading your posts, it sounds like you agree with it too.

You're responding 'So?' when I comment that your policy would perpetuate the very acts that got USA in to this mess? I know you don't give a shit, and I find that disturbing. The only solace to be had is that many others are seemingly coming around to a more Liberal POV.

What fucking policy are you talking about? The one where we mind our business? The one where, after war, we do not occupy and nation build? Which one? You don't make any sense at all. Your arguing small points and have completely ignored the overarching premise.

Incredible. The USA is the only country that risks soldiers or supplies aid to other countries? Let's take a look at aid giving by country for the Haiti disaster:

I didn't say anything about supplies.

CANADA: $130 million in aid pledged. So far, Canadians have privately contributed more than $39 million and Ottawa will match those funds. Some 2,000 military personnel, including two warships.

Two warships? Thanks! 2,000 military personnel that never got off the boat? Thanks! How many Canadian soldiers have died in the war on terror? Shit, how many Canadian soldiers have ever died for any cause? Thank you for contributing less than 1% of the soldiers in the fight to maintain global stability. Your incredible contribution of rice, maple syrup, and 12 sailors is duly noted.

UNITED STATES: $130 million in aid, according to USAID. Has sent about 12,000 military personnel so far, 265 government medical personnel, 18 Navy and Coast Guard ships, 49 helicopters and seven cargo planes to assist in aid delivery, support and evacuations. Is managing operations at the Port-au-Prince airport.
Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/754400

Oh, you were talking about Haiti? Never mind. I was talking about the war on terror. Fuck little babysitting missions like Haiti. How much has Canada contrinuted to keeping the world safe? Nothing? Awesome.

Consider the population difference of 30 million to 300 million I would say that my own country has done quite well in contributing worldwide to humanitarian effort, so don't act like the USA is the only country that does anything.

I don't give a shit about Humanitarian efforts. How did we get to this? Go read the original post and figure out how that applies in the least to this debate.

I've responded to this basic point above, which is the motive for attacking the USA and the necessity for United States to change.

I'm glad you sympathize with that motive and I truly think that from reading your post that you would love to be a terrorist. Between your sympathy for jihad and your insistence that America needs to change, I would argue that you need to be interrogated and kept at Gitmo.

 

[SalvIsWin]

We showed the dead bodies of Hussein's sons, and Iraqis stopped fighting. After that, we were fighting Iranians and Syrians. We hung Sadaam, and the government, including the Sunnis, came together.

Not every house in the entire country. You need to learn about things like context and hyperbole. We know where to find people. We know the areas they live in. We can find whoever we are looking for. Look at the example of Sadr City. We went door to door in Sadr City, eradicated the bad element, found Al-Sadr, and closed out the area. If you haven't noticed, we won in Iraq, and we did so by going door to door in the areas where that was needed. The only thing absurd is your constantly implying that the US somehow deserves what happened. What is absurd is that you think we need to change.

What are you specifically suggesting then? If an attack came from terrorists residing in Pakistan, you are suggesting that the USA invade and seek out the areas believed to hold terrorists and go door to door? That is going to do more harm than good, which is because it perpetuates the USA's global image to terrorists, which is a reason it is being attacked in the first place.

I'm not suggesting that the USA deserved what happened, I have specifically made it clear that I am not trying to condone the actions of terrorists, but understanding the reasons why it happened is critical for preventing acts of the same nature in the future. The USA has been occupying and having a hand in middle-eastern affairs for decades now, that is one the reasons that the USA was attacked.

I already gave the example of Sadr City, and honestly, most of Iraq, where we won by going door to door.

Sure we can. We did. We can do it again. I hope Canada is next.

I'm not arguing you cannot go door-to-door in the sense that it's physically impossible, but that from a logical standpoint, a policy of invasion and door-to-door eradication of suspects is not going to help the USA. Thorough searches of an area while engaged in war with a country is a tactically sound idea, but that's not what you're suggesting.

Rules only exist where there is an enforcement mechanism, and since we comprise about 135% of the troops that the UN actually deploys, the rules don't apply. But, you're completely missing the point of the post. The point is that we keep to ourselves and only use the military to defend our shores and our people. I have no idea how we got onto this tangent, but I assure you, if we didn't police the world no one would. Who are we going to rely on? Canada? Psshhhh.

To argue that the rules of war do not apply to the USA because of it's military strength is absurd. All countries must abide by the rules of war, or face consequences. Granted those consequences historically have not been harsh, nor have they been particularly threatening, but to suggest the USA can simply do what ever it likes without facing back lash at some point is ridiculous.

I'm going to explain this point further as I address your next points, but I'm not suggesting Canada police the world, or that the USA police the world, or that any one does, this entire concept of dealing with others is under the context that an terrorist attack came from within another country. I agreed when you stated the USA needs to mind it's own affairs and only intervene when the consequences directly impact the USA.

Which is why I propose we leave and don't come back. Did you even read the fucking original post or are you just on here to rant against America? If that's your goal, get the fuck out of here. If you would like to discuss the original post fine.


Did I ever, at any point, say that it had nothing to do with our being in other countries? Wait a minute......



I already said we need to go. What the fuck is your point?

This entire argument at this point is that you're suggesting the USA immediately invade, search, and kill all suspected terrorists in a country after an attack. I'm arguing that's not in the USA's best interests, and that it will only perpetuate the attacks to begin with.

I set forth a counter-proposal of having the USA military act as peacekeepers with the U.N., as that would be an effective way of keeping an eye on events as well as improving the USA's image.

OK, so you're a terrorist sympathizer. Cool with me. I am glad that you are so worldly and knowledgable that you can justify flying a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. That's great. Instead of attacking the military or declaring a war, they killed thousands of innocent civilians. I am glad that you sympathize with that. From reading your posts, it sounds like you agree with it too.

I clearly stated that I do not condone or justify the acts of terrorists, but to brush off their motives as random acts of pure evil is ignorant. Terrorists have motives for what they do, they attacked the USA for a reason. I'm not suggesting that it's a good reason, or that it was the proper course of action, but they felt provoked by the USA's occupation in the middle-east for decades. Understanding the underlying reasons for why those attacked happened is the first step for ensuring it doesn't happen again.

What fucking policy are you talking about? The one where we mind our business? The one where, after war, we do not occupy and nation build? Which one? You don't make any sense at all. Your arguing small points and have completely ignored the overarching premise.

Putting their leadership's dead bodies on television would convince a segment of them to rethink their place in the world. Furthermore, under this doctrine of "fighting to win" we could go house to house and root a large percentage of them out.

Kill them all. Get information on where to find them and then go kill them. If someone is hiding terrorists, kill them too.

If the Pakistani government is not interested in helping us, then we should walk in like we own the place, find the people responsible, kill them, and leave. We should fill every cave in Pakistan and Afghanistan full of teargas and shoot everyone who comes out.

That's the policy I am talking about. That's unethical, immoral, and there are other avenues to explore before it gets to that point. The entire point I am making is that actions like this are the reasons that terrorists are attacking the USA in the first place, terrorists were motivated by the USA's occupation and intervention in middle-eastern affairs.

I didn't say anything about supplies.

Such a shame, considering that we are the only nation who ever risks the lives of our soldiers in Africa to feed people, or Bosnia to save lives. We should stop those actions, let those people kill each other, and keep our people alive!

What are you feeding these Africans with?

Two warships? Thanks! 2,000 military personnel that never got off the boat? Thanks! How many Canadian soldiers have died in the war on terror? Shit, how many Canadian soldiers have ever died for any cause? Thank you for contributing less than 1% of the soldiers in the fight to maintain global stability. Your incredible contribution of rice, maple syrup, and 12 sailors is duly noted.

Allow me to educate you:

World War I: Population of 8 million, a total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces, and of these 66,655 were killed and another 172,950 were wounded.

World War II: Canada's beach in the Normandy invasion was Juno beach. Canada's population was 11.5 million, and 1.1 million Canadians served. 42,042 died, and another 55,000 were wounded

Korean War: 26,791 served. 1,558 Canadian casualties.

War in Afghanistan: 2,500 currently deployed, 150 have died thus far.

Canada does not put much in to it's military, we provide peacekeeping with the U.N. For a small country compared to the USA, Canada has done it's significant part, and it's lack of recognition is largely in part due to the ignorance of others.

Oh, you were talking about Haiti? Never mind. I was talking about the war on terror. Fuck little babysitting missions like Haiti. How much has Canada contrinuted to keeping the world safe? Nothing? Awesome.

Like I said, ignorance of others.

I'm glad you sympathize with that motive and I truly think that from reading your post that you would love to be a terrorist. Between your sympathy for jihad and your insistence that America needs to change, I would argue that you need to be interrogated and kept at Gitmo.

I feel I have addressed this point in this post earlier, so I won't get in to defending myself against terrorist sympathizer accusations.

 

[FromTheSouth]

What are you specifically suggesting then? If an attack came from terrorists residing in Pakistan, you are suggesting that the USA invade and seek out the areas believed to hold terrorists and go door to door? That is going to do more harm than good, which is because it perpetuates the USA's global image to terrorists, which is a reason it is being attacked in the first place.

Once again, I don't care about out global image. I care about our safety. To add to that, we went door to door in Iraq, and that's how we finally won.

I'm not suggesting that the USA deserved what happened, I have specifically made it clear that I am not trying to condone the actions of terrorists, but understanding the reasons why it happened is critical for preventing acts of the same nature in the future.

Actually, you haven't made it clear. You make statement that say you don't condone it, but then you follow it up with reasons we deserved it. You are a walking contradiction.

The USA has been occupying and having a hand in middle-eastern affairs for decades now, that is one the reasons that the USA was attacked.

Then you didn't read the opening post where step one was mind our own business. Are you going to acknowledge that I said this already or are you going to continue to make things up to argue about?

I'm not arguing you cannot go door-to-door in the sense that it's physically impossible, but that from a logical standpoint, a policy of invasion and door-to-door eradication of suspects is not going to help the USA.

That's ludicrous. There is a burgeoning democracy in Iraq that says you're wrong.

Thorough searches of an area while engaged in war with a country is a tactically sound idea, but that's not what you're suggesting.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting and I used an actual example, Sadr City, of how we did it and how we were successful.

To argue that the rules of war do not apply to the USA because of it's military strength is absurd.

I argued that the rules of war don't apply because there is no enforcement mechanism. I could also argue that they don't apply because the people we are fighting don't wear uniforms, don't engage troops, and don't follows those rules themselves. The best way to lose is to follow the rules when your opponent does not. This is not a typical war. There are no battle lines.

All countries must abide by the rules of war, or face consequences. Granted those consequences historically have not been harsh, nor have they been particularly threatening, but to suggest the USA can simply do what ever it likes without facing back lash at some point is ridiculous.

OK, so who is going to provide that backlash? Your idealism is cute, but pointless and completely not pragmatic.

I'm going to explain this point further as I address your next points, but I'm not suggesting Canada police the world, or that the USA police the world, or that any one does, this entire concept of dealing with others is under the context that an terrorist attack came from within another country.

That's great. Perhaps you could argue what the thread is about rather than making three posts about two sentences that you took completely out of context?

I agreed when you stated the USA needs to mind it's own affairs and only intervene when the consequences directly impact the USA.

OK great. Then the rest of your post is completely pointless? I don't understand why you decided to take this topic to tell me how the US should fight war, especially when your country does nothing more than provide peacekeeping troops in the safest areas in the world. The UN sends us to Rwanda to stop civil wars and they send you to Candyland.

This entire argument at this point is that you're suggesting the USA immediately invade, search, and kill all suspected terrorists in a country after an attack. I'm arguing that's not in the USA's best interests, and that it will only perpetuate the attacks to begin with.

No, you're wrong again. My argument is that we stay out of other countries affairs, but, if someone provokes us, then we go house to house. My argument is that we fight to win, not fight to win a popularity contest in Europe. To put it more plainly, fuck what Europe thinks of us. France's opinion of my country means less then what I flush down the toilet.

I set forth a counter-proposal of having the USA military act as peacekeepers with the U.N., as that would be an effective way of keeping an eye on events as well as improving the USA's image.

And my argument is that we've been doing that forever, providing a great majority of the troops, taking a great majority of the risk, and getting shit on in return. My argument is that we abandon the UN, kick it off of our soil, and tell that corrupt, impotent body to kiss our red, white, and blue asses. The UN is the most worthless use of land, air, and space in the world. I think it should be disbanded and most of the participants arrested for the corrupt actions that they all take part in.

I clearly stated that I do not condone or justify the acts of terrorists, but to brush off their motives as random acts of pure evil is ignorant. Terrorists have motives for what they do, they attacked the USA for a reason. I'm not suggesting that it's a good reason, or that it was the proper course of action, but they felt provoked by the USA's occupation in the middle-east for decades. Understanding the underlying reasons for why those attacked happened is the first step for ensuring it doesn't happen again.

Thanks for making more excuses for terrorists. That was nice of you. They need another advocate on here. Strange that both of you are Canadian. And, for the three hundredth time in this one sided debate - MY WHOLE ARGUMENT IS PREDICATED ON LEAVING THE MIDDLE EAST AND MINDING OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

That's the policy I am talking about. That's unethical, immoral, and there are other avenues to explore before it gets to that point. The entire point I am making is that actions like this are the reasons that terrorists are attacking the USA in the first place, terrorists were motivated by the USA's occupation and intervention in middle-eastern affairs.

I would argue that not exploring all avenues to keep our own people safe would be an immoral act on the half of the government. The only moral obligation the US government has is to keep our people safe. We have no moral obligation to anyone else anywhere in the world.

What are you feeding these Africans with?

We shouldn't be feeding them at all. There are people in America that we could spend half a billion dollars a year on and turn them into productive, tax paying citizens. Helping Africa is nothing more than grandstanding and does absolutely jack shit to help people. African aid buys weapons for warlords and does not help the impoverished.

Allow me to educate you:

World War I: Population of 8 million, a total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces, and of these 66,655 were killed and another 172,950 were wounded.

World War II: Canada's beach in the Normandy invasion was Juno beach. Canada's population was 11.5 million, and 1.1 million Canadians served. 42,042 died, and another 55,000 were wounded

Korean War: 26,791 served. 1,558 Canadian casualties.

War in Afghanistan: 2,500 currently deployed, 150 have died thus far.

Canada does not put much in to it's military, we provide peacekeeping with the U.N. For a small country compared to the USA, Canada has done it's significant part, and it's lack of recognition is largely in part due to the ignorance of others.

I don't understand how that is ignorance. I argued that Canada could contribute more than they do, and all of your stats show that I am right. Thanks for those two warships.

Like I said, ignorance of others.

It's very easy to call someone ignorant as a way to pass off the fact that you can't come up with an argument.

I feel I have addressed this point in this post earlier, so I won't get in to defending myself against terrorist sympathizer accusations.

You addressed it, you just didn't do a very convincing job of it. Please, keep blaming us for getting attacked by terrorists. It's pretty easy to do from an area that is safe from terrorism because no one cares about what happens there.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Once again, I don't care about out global image. I care about our safety. To add to that, we went door to door in Iraq, and that's how we finally won.

And I am arguing that your global image and safety are directly correlated. You have established a rough-and-ready democracy in Iraq, but you have not won against terrorism, which was the exact point of invading, so to argue that your idea was the one used to clean up shop isn't accurate.

Actually, you haven't made it clear. You make statement that say you don't condone it, but then you follow it up with reasons we deserved it. You are a walking contradiction.

Thanks for making more excuses for terrorists. That was nice of you. They need another advocate on here. Strange that both of you are Canadian. And, for the three hundredth time in this one sided debate - MY WHOLE ARGUMENT IS PREDICATED ON LEAVING THE MIDDLE EAST AND MINDING OUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

The USA has been occupying and in having a hand in events in the middle east for decades now. You have stated that you would rather the USA mind it's own business unless directly threatened. The USA's occupation is the reason that terrorists attacked your country, hence why I agreed when you said you would rather the USA mind it's business. I don't agree with a policy that has the United States occupying and having a hand in middle-eastern affairs, neither do you, neither do terrorists; that is why they attacked. Was that a just reason for attacking? No. Am I therefore saying the USA deserved the attack? No.

I cannot state this in any simpler terms, I don't see your logic in consistently re-posting with the accusation that I think the USA deserved the attacks. There are situations where one's actions lead to retaliation from others, understanding why that retaliation occurred, regardless of it's justification is important. For a hypothetical, if I'm engaged in a heated argument with someone and he decides to hit me, I can learn from that situation. I wouldn't be arrested for that altercation, the other guy would, which I am stating because it shows who would be wrong. However I know for next time that heated arguments might not be a wise choice, maybe I would have intimidated him enough to back down, but a better choice overall would have probably been to leave or hash it out rationally.

In my above example, one side is clearly wrong, but I can still see the action that provoked or motivated that person to do what they did. If some one were to tell me that aggressively shouting at another person isn't something I should do in the future, I wouldn't accuse them of being a sympathizer of the guy who hit me, I would listen to what he has to say.

Then you didn't read the opening post where step one was mind our own business. Are you going to acknowledge that I said this already or are you going to continue to make things up to argue about?

I have acknowledged this. We agree that the USA should stay out of others' business. However you think that if provoked, the USA should march in, take control and begin an eradication of terrorists. The reason I agreed that the United States should stay out of others' affairs is because I believe it elicits hatred from terrorists, which would motivate them to attack the USA. That same hatred would be elicited from invading countries and taking over.

The situation at hand is that terrorists have targeted the USA because it has occupied others' countries for so long, so it's possible that the United States would be attacked again, even if they stopped the actions that motivated terrorists in the first place. I think it would take years, and perhaps taking the high-road for dealing with terrorists until their motivation has subsided.

That's ludicrous. There is a burgeoning democracy in Iraq that says you're wrong...That's exactly what I'm suggesting and I used an actual example, Sadr City, of how we did it and how we were successful.

If developing a democracy in Iraq was the purpose of the war, then I would say mission accomplished, but the purpose was to stop terrorism, which hasn't been accomplished.

In regards to Sadr City, to clarify what I meant, you have suggested that: USA minds its own business, but if attacked, invade the country in which the terrorists reside in unless given satisfactory cooperation by that countries government and deal with the terrorists threat as the USA sees fit, then leave the country in what ever state it has now succumbed to.

That plan will do more harm than good. In a best case scenario you eradicate the terrorists, but you will have motivated terrorists to fight against the USA even harder, and considering that terrorists are not particularly deterred by the prospect of death, this isn't a sound strategy.

I argued that the rules of war don't apply because there is no enforcement mechanism. I could also argue that they don't apply because the people we are fighting don't wear uniforms, don't engage troops, and don't follows those rules themselves. The best way to lose is to follow the rules when your opponent does not. This is not a typical war. There are no battle lines.

There are international rules of war, there is the Geneva convention, and there is the United States' own military rules. You are not compelled to abide by these rules, but again I argue that terrorists are motivated to attack the USA because in part of it's global image. Not abiding by your own rules of war is only going to motivate terrorists to fight back stronger.

I feel as if under your proposal, the United States would be playing right in to terrorist hands. I would imagine that not fighting by your own rules would serve the terrorist propaganda used to recruit others.

OK, so who is going to provide that backlash? Your idealism is cute, but pointless and completely not pragmatic.


That's great. Perhaps you could argue what the thread is about rather than making three posts about two sentences that you took completely out of context?

You would be playing in to terrorist hands under the proposal you have outlined. Terrorists recruit others via propaganda, vilifying the United States as a global bully that meddles in others' affairs. By not abiding the rules of war and leaving countries in a state of disrepair, you would be making the job of terrorists easier and terrorism would continue, which was the entire point of invading in the first place.

This thread is about discussing the plan outlined in your original post. I'm attempting to show how that plan, and how some of your elaborations on that plan would do more harm than good, and attempting to insert a different strategy.

OK great. Then the rest of your post is completely pointless? I don't understand why you decided to take this topic to tell me how the US should fight war, especially when your country does nothing more than provide peacekeeping troops in the safest areas in the world. The UN sends us to Rwanda to stop civil wars and they send you to Candyland.

Part of the plan you suggested, as well as in your responses, dictate how the USA should retaliate to best deal with terrorism in order to save money. The best way to save money would be to deal with terrorism in the most effective way possible, and thus it's become the topic of choice. What my country does or does not do isn't the topic at hand.

No, you're wrong again. My argument is that we stay out of other countries affairs, but, if someone provokes us, then we go house to house. My argument is that we fight to win, not fight to win a popularity contest in Europe. To put it more plainly, fuck what Europe thinks of us. France's opinion of my country means less then what I flush down the toilet.

The italicized part is exactly what I wrote, I didn't mention staying out of others' affairs because I had mentioned that elsewhere in the post and I felt it was implied, but I digress.

I would agree with the bolded portion, but Europe's opinion of the USA is based on the United States global image. That global image is what motivates terrorists, thus raising your global image is in your best interest on multiple fronts.

And my argument is that we've been doing that forever, providing a great majority of the troops, taking a great majority of the risk, and getting shit on in return. My argument is that we abandon the UN, kick it off of our soil, and tell that corrupt, impotent body to kiss our red, white, and blue asses. The UN is the most worthless use of land, air, and space in the world. I think it should be disbanded and most of the participants arrested for the corrupt actions that they all take part in.

The USA has been occupying areas for it's own self-interest and undertaking peacekeeping missions. I commend for USA for the latter and part of my counter-proposal would be to focus more on this aspect. However occupying others' land and overall not 'minding it's own business' is what motivated terrorists the begin with. I don't see how leaving the U.N would help the United States overall.

I would argue that not exploring all avenues to keep our own people safe would be an immoral act on the half of the government. The only moral obligation the US government has is to keep our people safe. We have no moral obligation to anyone else anywhere in the world.

Agreed, the intention of your plan is to stay at home and use the money you save to protect your own citizens, and part of your plan is to invade when attacked, eradicating all terrorists and leaving a country in a state of disrepair if need be. That would be done to instill fear in terrorists and deter them, thus further protecting your citizens.

What I am saying is that this wouldn't be protecting your citizens. Staying at home and embarking on peacekeeping missions is a good idea, but if when provoked the United States invades and does what ever it please, it's going to further motivate terrorists, and that isn't making your citizens safe.

I don't understand how that is ignorance. I argued that Canada could contribute more than they do, and all of your stats show that I am right. Thanks for those two warships.

You should let your country go be the peacekeeping force for a while. See what thanks you get.

Such a shame, considering that we are the only nation who ever risks the lives of our soldiers in Africa to feed people, or Bosnia to save lives. We should stop those actions, let those people kill each other, and keep our people alive.

Who are we going to rely on? Canada? Psshhhh.

Two warships? Thanks! 2,000 military personnel that never got off the boat? Thanks! How many Canadian soldiers have died in the war on terror? Shit, how many Canadian soldiers have ever died for any cause? Thank you for contributing less than 1% of the soldiers in the fight to maintain global stability. Your incredible contribution of rice, maple syrup, and 12 sailors is duly noted.

Oh, you were talking about Haiti? Never mind. I was talking about the war on terror. Fuck little babysitting missions like Haiti. How much has Canada contrinuted to keeping the world safe? Nothing? Awesome.

How do all the stats provided show that you are right? My stats show that you're willfully ignorant to others' contributions. I would like for to elaborate on why Canada should contribute more, and why the contributions we have made are unsatisfactory in your eyes.

I don't give a shit about Humanitarian efforts. How did we get to this? Go read the original post and figure out how that applies in the least to this debate.

I know how it applies to this debate, you do not, so I will explain it to you. This entire thread is about reducing military spending. Part of the plan outlined to reduce spending is to withdraw troops and mind your own business, protecting your own people, not others. Instilling fear in terrorists by invading and systematically eradicating terrorists in a country if provoked, with no regard for international law regarding war.

I'm explaining why this wouldn't reduce your military spending. You would motivate terrorists further with a plan like this because you are already targeted, if another attack happened, you would engage in another war, which would motivate terrorists further and the cycle would continue, this would cost money, money you aiming to save.

 

[FromTheSouth]

And I am arguing that your global image and safety are directly correlated.

But it's really not. Do you think that if we withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea that we will suddenly be safe? Of course not. The jihadists have a radical agenda that includes converting people and changing the entire world. It is a fourth crusade for them. Their plan for achieving their goals was all about trying to make the global economy collapse and the best way to do that is to attack the country who holds the currency that the entire world economy is pegged to. There is more than our presence in Arab lands that is motivating them.

You have established a rough-and-ready democracy in Iraq, but you have not won against terrorism, which was the exact point of invading, so to argue that your idea was the one used to clean up shop isn't accurate.

Are you serious? Are you going to claim that Hussein's death didn't make the world better? Did you assume that this was a battle to be fought in one theater? The plan is to disrupt terrorism until it can be defeated, and I would claim that that objective has been met. We have stopped terrorist attacks in Iraq for the most part, so now it is time to move on and bring the troops home and prevent anything else from happening here.

The USA has been occupying and in having a hand in events in the middle east for decades now. You have stated that you would rather the USA mind it's own business unless directly threatened. The USA's occupation is the reason that terrorists attacked your country, hence why I agreed when you said you would rather the USA mind it's business.

In all fairness though, this argument started before you edited or reposted your agreement. You still haven't actually addressed the topic.

I don't agree with a policy that has the United States occupying and having a hand in middle-eastern affairs, neither do you, neither do terrorists; that is why they attacked. Was that a just reason for attacking? No. Am I therefore saying the USA deserved the attack? No.

There is so much more to it though. We occupied the same areas in the 80's when they were on our side. This is the fourth crusade, and we need to realize this. This is an attack on Christianity, on Judaism, and on the Western way of life. They hate our permissiveness, promiscuity, and wealth. Our occupation in the middle east may be the catalyst, but this is far more than a "land battle."

I cannot state this in any simpler terms, I don't see your logic in consistently re-posting with the accusation that I think the USA deserved the attacks.

You keep making excuses for the terrorists.

There are situations where one's actions lead to retaliation from others, understanding why that retaliation occurred, regardless of it's justification is important.

But you don't seem to understand why it's happening. At least, not completely. It is about occupation, yes. But it's also about religion, Israel, wealth, and way of life.

For a hypothetical, if I'm engaged in a heated argument with someone and he decides to hit me, I can learn from that situation. I wouldn't be arrested for that altercation, the other guy would, which I am stating because it shows who would be wrong. However I know for next time that heated arguments might not be a wise choice, maybe I would have intimidated him enough to back down, but a better choice overall would have probably been to leave or hash it out rationally.

Well, words are not a reason to hit someone, so your example shows that while there may be disagreements, one side is always going to act irrationally and someone who doesn't deserve it in the least is going to get hurt for no reason. In your arguments, you continually state there is a reason, while in your hypothetical, there is not. I'm confused.

In my above example, one side is clearly wrong, but I can still see the action that provoked or motivated that person to do what they did.

That wasn't provocation. The guy that hit you was completely out of line and deserves whatever happens to him.

If some one were to tell me that aggressively shouting at another person isn't something I should do in the future, I wouldn't accuse them of being a sympathizer of the guy who hit me, I would listen to what he has to say.

Yeah, your analogy doesn't work for me.

I have acknowledged this. We agree that the USA should stay out of others' business. However you think that if provoked, the USA should march in, take control and begin an eradication of terrorists.

Yes. I think that if we are going to fight, winning should be our goal.

The reason I agreed that the United States should stay out of others' affairs is because I believe it elicits hatred from terrorists, which would motivate them to attack the USA. That same hatred would be elicited from invading countries and taking over.

I didn't say anything about taking over. Step six clearly says that if someone provokes us, it is their mess to clean up when we are done. I think we should destroy the place, get who we came after and leave. That is my only claim.

The situation at hand is that terrorists have targeted the USA because it has occupied others' countries for so long, so it's possible that the United States would be attacked again, even if they stopped the actions that motivated terrorists in the first place. I think it would take years, and perhaps taking the high-road for dealing with terrorists until their motivation has subsided.

I don't feel that there is a high road to take in a situation like battling terrorism. They don't have uniforms, the use and hide behind women and children, and they do not engage troops. We can't fight a classy war against them.



If developing a democracy in Iraq was the purpose of the war, then I would say mission accomplished, but the purpose was to stop terrorism, which hasn't been accomplished.

In regards to Sadr City, to clarify what I meant, you have suggested that: USA minds its own business, but if attacked, invade the country in which the terrorists reside in unless given satisfactory cooperation by that countries government and deal with the terrorists threat as the USA sees fit, then leave the country in what ever state it has now succumbed to.

That plan will do more harm than good. In a best case scenario you eradicate the terrorists, but you will have motivated terrorists to fight against the USA even harder, and considering that terrorists are not particularly deterred by the prospect of death, this isn't a sound strategy.

I suggest that we kill as many as we can while trying to disrupt command and control. Like I said, this is not a traditional war. How do you suggest we respond to a terrorist attack? Should we do nothing? That doesn't work for me, global perspective be damned.

There are international rules of war, there is the Geneva convention, and there is the United States' own military rules. You are not compelled to abide by these rules, but again I argue that terrorists are motivated to attack the USA because in part of it's global image. Not abiding by your own rules of war is only going to motivate terrorists to fight back stronger.

But again, they do not follow any rules of war. They don't have uniforms, they don't engage troops, they build their own landmines, and they attack civilians. The reason it took so long in Iraq is because we tried to follow the rules of war and fight traditionally. That doesn't work in this situation.

I feel as if under your proposal, the United States would be playing right in to terrorist hands. I would imagine that not fighting by your own rules would serve the terrorist propaganda used to recruit others.

That's too bad. I think we need to fight by their rules to beat them.

You would be playing in to terrorist hands under the proposal you have outlined. Terrorists recruit others via propaganda, vilifying the United States as a global bully that meddles in others' affairs. By not abiding the rules of war and leaving countries in a state of disrepair, you would be making the job of terrorists easier and terrorism would continue, which was the entire point of invading in the first place.

Yeah, but that's the nature of the beast. The best way to beat terrorists is to completely disorganize them. If we eliminate the leadership of nations who let them thrive in mountainous regions, we can disrupt recruiting. The reason that there are so many training camps and actual terrorists is because certain governments have allowed it to happen. If a government understands that if they let the situation continue they are going to get destroyed it would provide some incentive for those nations to nip terrorism in the bud instead of making us do it.

This thread is about discussing the plan outlined in your original post. I'm attempting to show how that plan, and how some of your elaborations on that plan would do more harm than good, and attempting to insert a different strategy.

You haven't really suggested anything. You've told me how you think I am wrong. I am telling you that leaving a nation in complete and total disrepair might encourage the other nations harboring terrorism to shape up so it doesn't happen to them. We need to fight terrorists differently than we fight war, which means changing the rules or abandoning them all together.

Part of the plan you suggested, as well as in your responses, dictate how the USA should retaliate to best deal with terrorism in order to save money. The best way to save money would be to deal with terrorism in the most effective way possible, and thus it's become the topic of choice. What my country does or does not do isn't the topic at hand.

Removing troops from Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia would save a quarter trillion dollars a year alone. Bringing them home from Iraq would push that total over $300,000,000,000. Whatever we do to fight terrorism in the future will cost less than that yearly.

I would agree with the bolded portion, but Europe's opinion of the USA is based on the United States global image. That global image is what motivates terrorists, thus raising your global image is in your best interest on multiple fronts.

There is so much more motivating terrorists. I've said it five times already. So we can just bring those arguments down here.

The USA has been occupying areas for it's own self-interest and undertaking peacekeeping missions. I commend for USA for the latter and part of my counter-proposal would be to focus more on this aspect. However occupying others' land and overall not 'minding it's own business' is what motivated terrorists the begin with. I don't see how leaving the U.N would help the United States overall.

I think we should abandon those peacekeeping duties all together, kick the UN off of our shores, and isolate our military here at home.

Agreed, the intention of your plan is to stay at home and use the money you save to protect your own citizens, and part of your plan is to invade when attacked, eradicating all terrorists and leaving a country in a state of disrepair if need be. That would be done to instill fear in terrorists and deter them, thus further protecting your citizens.

What I am saying is that this wouldn't be protecting your citizens. Staying at home and embarking on peacekeeping missions is a good idea, but if when provoked the United States invades and does what ever it please, it's going to further motivate terrorists, and that isn't making your citizens safe.

It's not like we're invading willy nilly. We're destroying the governmental infrastructure of the nations that choose not to do anything to disrupt the terrorist actions occurring within their borders. Basically, we feed off of the ego of the typical corrupt leader. He loves nothing more than being in charge, and will act against terrorists if he feels that we are going to remove him form power.

How do all the stats provided show that you are right? My stats show that you're willfully ignorant to others' contributions. I would like for to elaborate on why Canada should contribute more, and why the contributions we have made are unsatisfactory in your eyes.

No boots on the ground. It's a token contribution.

I know how it applies to this debate, you do not, so I will explain it to you. This entire thread is about reducing military spending. Part of the plan outlined to reduce spending is to withdraw troops and mind your own business, protecting your own people, not others. Instilling fear in terrorists by invading and systematically eradicating terrorists in a country if provoked, with no regard for international law regarding war.

I'm explaining why this wouldn't reduce your military spending. You would motivate terrorists further with a plan like this because you are already targeted, if another attack happened, you would engage in another war, which would motivate terrorists further and the cycle would continue, this would cost money, money you aiming to save.

But the savings from withdrawing from places we don't need to be would more than cover the "fight to win" aspect of the plan.