Replies

Are we better off with foreign occupation, or our outposts overseas over-run, our Navy, Air Force, and Army unable to function?

Should we even be overseas?
I don't think there's compelling reason that we should be involved — short actual, declared war. (As opposed to police-actions and fake wars.)

The only exception I can think of is Japan — as our surrender-terms forbade them from having a [real] Army/Navy/military we are morally obligated to defend them.

Do you think the nation's armed forces are better off if every person that is lucid enough to grasp this situation as you have, quits?

The only reason I quit was because as an E4 I had zero power to change things, and if I tried I would not be supported by my superiors, but crushed by them.
I would much rather have been able to stand on principle against trashing the Constitution, or standing aside and letting it be trashed.

Doesn't that leave only the idiots behind? Aren't those idiot more likely to simply follow through and do anything that is asked of them?

Well, I would like to think that if there were a significant portion that was lucid enough to grasp this situation this would be a non-issue; as it is, I simply don't know. Staying in when you can be compelled to act against your conscience isn't a comfortable feeling and certainly isn't conducive to being battle-ready.

Is he safe now? Is the nation safer now? Are our agents overseas safer? Are we going to get the best intel we could considering the global dynamics today?

He's safer than had he stayed here. I think the nation is not safer now, but I don't think it's less safe either; he merely revealed how unsafe it is in actuality — perhaps that will prompt us to change things (all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed). Perhaps.

I'm not sure having agents overseas is entirely a good thing — it might be better to rely more on overt and official presence (diplomats) than on secret agents. I would not be opposed to abolishing all civil intel agencies and having only military intel agencies. (The Constitution does not authorize security and intelligence agencies, but it does authorize an Army and Navy.)
As for global dynamics — I don't know. Certainly there's more to worry about here than in the vague out there.

I appreciate the arguments made. You raise valid points. I'm just not sure where the nation goes if those points are acted on.

Thank you.
Well, I do think things would be radically different if we actually followed the Constitution.

My thoughts about being overseas these days, is related to the only thing worse, not being overseas.

Do we want Russia and China resolving issues in the Middle-East, making the government level social connections that would see them dominate global dynamics from the very moment with withdrew?

Some people think they would like to try that. You don't develop the global clout we have overnight. If we withdraw, we would never again be the global power we are today. Every overseas base would be Russian, Chinese, perhaps Indian, or ISIS owned and operated.

Even Israel would have to abadon us for a new protector, if they could find one. If they couldn't we would have to fight our way to Israel past a number of nations who would have other allies by that time. We would be a global nothing.

I wasn't going to give you a hard time about your decision, because only you knew what contributed to it in total. Even if I didn't agree with your actions, you have to do what makes sense to you. I can see why you did it. In your position I think you did the best you could.

Even under an Obama, we still need a military. I don't like the guy. I think he's our enemy. He will leave the White House. At that point our next real president needs to have a functional military. I am hoping a Cruz-like individual can get in there and clean house.

I don't believe Snowden's damage was negligable. I believe people and operations were comprimised. The relations between nations was clearly damaged. When it was revealed that our government spied on other governments and entities, it took a big hit. Yes other nations do it. Do other nations have specific instances of it word for word in global newspapers? Think that didn't cause us problems with other nations? I think it did. What organization is going to be as forthcoming with details, if they can't count on those details remaining secret? This was a nightmare all around.

Okay, then you'd let Hillary and the diplomats take care of intelligence gathering. I'm not buying into that. No freaken way.

Yes, you can claim that the Constitution does not spell out clandestine operations. It doesn't cover the CIA or the NSA. As long as these agencies are focused on intelligence gathering overseas, or specific terrorist related operations here, I think it is reasoned to think they are covered under the greater Military concept. Do I want the miltary running operations domestically? No. Obviously if there's a massive incident the national guard would need to come in, but other than that, the military should remain a foreign soil specific agency, unless we are fighting a war on our own soil.

What the NSA did was wrong. Vetting this president, didn't happen.

With regard to these things, I agree that we did not follow the Constitution. Some people should go to prison for a long stay over it. Those things should be addressed. They should not be allowed to continue.