Posted on 06/19/2011 10:19:55 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
The debate was on public display Sunday as two of the GOP's leading figures on defense and foreign policy, Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, criticized Republican presidential hopefuls and congressional leaders who question the country's military intervention around the world.
"There has always been an isolationist strain in the Republican Party," McCain said on ABC's "This Week," "but now it seems to have moved more center stage.... That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world."
Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that any debate over cutting funding for the Libya war would encourage resistance by Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi. "Congress should sort of shut up," he said.
McCain and Graham also criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's leading in the polls for the party's presidential nomination, for referring to the fighting in Afghanistan as a "war for independence" that the U.S. should leave to others.
"I wish that candidate Romney and all the others would sit down" with U.S. commanders "and understand how this counter-insurgency is working and succeeding," McCain said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I spoke recently with my son who has 15 years in 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. I asked if we could save money by removing part of our forces from Germany and other places where we are not fighting. He said the choice is whether we want to remain as a world power, or retreat and leave that role to others.
I spoke recently with my son who has 15 years in 82nd Airborne and Special Forces. I asked if we could save money by removing part of our forces from Germany and other places where we are not fighting. He said the choice is whether we want to remain as a world power, or retreat and leave that role to others.
Eff all that.
Let’s pull out of Crapganistan and Libya.
If it’s so damn important someone will step in and it should someone besides us.
Libya, however, is not a campaign for a world power. According to Obahama (typo that I don’t feel like correcting; him, whatsisface, whatever), the US is just there in a supportive role for NATO. Fine. Take him at his word. It’s time for some other nation to do it. Don’t look at us. Israel’s very presence would be disruptive to NATO’s idiotic mission. Let’s get Turkey to do it.
We were never appointed world cop. Not our job.
The last time the US tried to stay out of world affairs, however, Europe self-destructed twice, leaving the US by default with the job of globocop. I sympathize with you, because the role is unwelcome. But it’s also unavoidable. In the case of Libya, however, US involvement is frivolous and very avoidable.
For that era, I tend to agree. But that was then, this is now. There won’t be anymore conventional “world wars”.
NATO is largely composed of United States armed forces. I think it is time for Europe to pay for their own defense.
If Iran goes nuclear, just try to stay out of it. Now is worse than before. America can’t withdraw from world affairs, because it is a major target as well as a catalyst.
Absolutely. It’s damned stupid and irresponsible for America to take orders from NATO instead of giving them, and then provide the major force to back up NATO.
If Iran goes nuclear, just try to stay out of it.
lol...Iran? Nuclear against who? Israel? They have about 475 nuclear weapons. Stay out of what?
America can’t withdraw from world affairs
World affairs like legitimate trade, which benefits America? Fine.
But being world cop is no longer doable, and most have had a belly full of it back firing in our faces.
We're flat broke and will be for many years. End of story.
"For that era, I tend to agree. But that was then, this is now. There won’t be anymore conventional “world wars”".
If ya think there are going to be more *conventional* "world wars", then I can't help ya.
Somewhere along the line our leaders forgot that a strong military isn’t supposed to be used as the world’s policeman. We have a strong military so that we do NOT have to constantly use it.
As I recall, this started with Clinton in Bosnia. Democrat administrations are generally hostile to the military, but they sure like to use it...a lot. Isolationism isn’t the answer, but neither are these expeditionary wars all over the planet!
Rides...: “More like hot spots and an ability to react with great speed to such threats.”
That’s why the nation needs overseas bases so that we can preposition assets and quickly react to threats. Those forward bases give our leaders options. The problem isn’t the bases. It’s that our leaders keep using the “engage” option. They should be using the “deterrent” option. The only legitimate use of US military forces is to protect the nation from imminent threats to the nation and its citizens. Rescue missions to extract US citizens or protect them from pirates? Yes. Preemptive attacks to destroy threats when intelligence shows they represent an imminent threat, for example being prepped for launch? OK. Bombing Libya and killing Libyan civilians in order to save civilians? Eh, not so much.
We can’t be a world power with the presence of troops alone, we are being dragged down by the idiots making our national decisions
Including the aging and irrelevant John McCain and the embarrassing HowdyDoody Linsey Graham
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.