How to respond to this?

[Gravik]

I posted a comment on a Romney article about how we need to bring all the troops home and i got this as a response:

"Hey! Name one President that has been successful at bringing home all the troops....can't think of any can ya? Do you know why? If a sitting president would bring home all the troops international civil disorder will ensue expecially along places like the DMZ the 38th Parallel that separates North Korea from South Korea."

What would be a good response to this?

[acptulsa]

The Cold War is over. South Korea has millions in population; they might like our help with weapons but they don't need our troops. If civil disorder immediately erupts somewhere when we pull out it's because we were messing around where we had no business anyway--that called 'imperialism', son--and they're closer to the democracy we claim to favor (and better off in general) with us gone.

What's more, when we aren't imposing our 'order' on them against their will, they have a harder time finding people who are pissed off enough to stage terrorist attacks on us. They can't blame us for their problems when we aren't there; they have to blame themselves.

[bluesc]

"So?"

Seriously, SK would absolutely destroy NK. China wouldn't allow it anyway, why would they want SK, and by extension Japan on their border? NK is a buffer zone they want to keep.

Germany would be fine, the UK would be fine, Italy would be fine, Saudi Arabia would be fine, Iraq would be fine, Afghanistan will end up how it would end up when we eventually pull out due to economic reasons anyway.

It's either a bit of international uncertainty, or economic collapse at home. I'm sure Gorbachev was being warned the same thing before the Soviet Union collapsed.

[AGRP]

Should China occupy Texas to solve the "civil disorder" along the southern border?

[acptulsa]

Should China occupy Texas to solve the "civil disorder" along the southern border?

:D Sounds like a dream Will Rogers once had while under the influence of ether (or so he said).


'I see we're sending the Marines to China.

'Good heavens. How would we like it if the Chinese sent their Marines up the Mississippi, saying they have to look after their laundries in Memphis?'--Will Rogers

[pcosmar]

I posted a comment on a Romney article about how we need to bring all the troops home and i got this as a response:

"Hey! Name one President that has been successful at bringing home all the troops....can't think of any can ya? Do you know why? If a sitting president would bring home all the troops international civil disorder will ensue expecially along places like the DMZ the 38th Parallel that separates North Korea from South Korea."

What would be a good response to this?

He says that like it's a bad thing.

[Anti Federalist]

I posted a comment on a Romney article about how we need to bring all the troops home and i got this as a response:

"Hey! Name one President that has been successful at bringing home all the troops....can't think of any can ya? Do you know why? If a sitting president would bring home all the troops international civil disorder will ensue expecially along places like the DMZ the 38th Parallel that separates North Korea from South Korea."

What would be a good response to this?

Response:

"The troops are coming home, whether you like it or not. We're broke, and it's disengage now, on our own terms, or leave, bankrupt, in a few more years on somebody else's terms. Those are the only two choices open to us. You decide."

[Johnny Appleseed]

I always liked the phrase "walk softly and carry a big stick"

[emazur]

I've got something that will trump anyone who thinks spending needs to stay the same or be increased for the military (and this goes for all other spending as well): GAO data from 2007 shows that by 2040, nearly every dollar the government collects in taxes will be needed for Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07983r.pdf
That data of course was before the bailouts, the stimulus, and Obama's massive deficits. There will not be a single penny left for national defense or anything else. We will all be defenseless tax slaves living in a nation that's no longer worth defending. Unless we get Ron Paul for presidentl who will make massive across the board cuts.

In the RP2012 article in my sig, I used the fiscal argument for America to pull out of the wars but this applies to bringing home troops worldwide also. Here's a couple useful items:

Gregory Zerzan was Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of President George W. Bush. In his October 2009 article entitled "Dollar is a National Security Issue", he wrote

The ability to cripple the U.S. economy by massively devaluing the dollar is the type of "asymmetric warfare" that the People's Liberation Army has discussed openly in recent years. This is not to suggest that the People's Republic wants to destroy the dollar, nor that doing so would come without cost. But such power would clearly give China tremendous leverage.


Dr. Jerome Corsi reported on a 2010 Joint Operating Environment report released by the United States Joint Forces Command concerning America's debt

The JOE 2010 correctly noted that the unfunded obligations constituting the nation's $70.7 trillion negative net worth are a result of the U.S. baby-boom generation coming of age to receive entitlement benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while the underlying working population that pays to support the programs is declining as a consequence of both demographics and unemployment.

With regard to national-defense implications of the deteriorating U.S. economic position, the JOE 2010 worried that should China demand higher interest rates as an inducement to continuing to buy the U.S. Treasury debt needed to finance continuing trillion-dollar U.S. federal budget deficits, the U.S. could suffer a "hard landing" that could increase the perception the U.S. no longer controls its financial future.

Noting President Obama's warning that the U.S. economy will add $9 trillion debt over the next decade, the JOE 2010 warned the result could be "a decreased ability of the United States to allocate dollars to defense."

I doubt the individuals above were saying "we need to cut military spending in order to save the military", but that's what I'm saying, so tough titty.