Are Republicans holding the US back?

[Euronion]

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

Yes, jumping in after a great majority of the war has been fought on the soil of other countries and those countries have fields literally running red with the blood of their own soldiers is certainly doing them a 'favor'.

I don't know about you, but the incessant crowing we do about how we 'won' WWII for the Allies is probably incredibly fucking annoying to the people that fought the war for five fucking years before we jumped in.

So you are saying that without the US that the Allied Forces in France would have held the line after the Great German offensive in 1917? that the Allies could've gotten even close to Germany before the Soviet Union reached Berlin? If the US had not intervened in either case I can assure you the World would be extremely different.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

No one's going to invade the US, ever. No major military power will.

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

How can you be so sure? Iran does not have enough fuel to support their air force or their navy if they invade US, besides US have a lot of bases surrounding Iran so any attempts to invade US will fail. North Korea, well, I doubt they can launch any invasion at all.

[Gauntleted Fist]

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

they would have to. If they don't and some how we are defeated by iran and north korea(which i doubt because even if we cut milatry spending in half we would probably stil be in the top 3 in milatary spending in the world) the world ecomeny world collapse

We could cut our military spending to a third of what it is and we'd still be number one.

[Gauntleted Fist]

So you are saying that without the US that the Allied Forces in France would have held the line after the Great German offensive in 1917? that the Allies could've gotten even close to Germany before the Soviet Union reached Berlin? If the US had not intervened in either case I can assure you the World would be extremely different.

It'd be a lot fucking redder.

Because the Soviet Union would have steamrolled all of western Europe post-war.

[Vareiln]

No one's going to invade the US, ever. No major military power will.

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

Are you seriously afraid of North Korea or Iran invading the US? Really?

[The Nuclear Fist]

So you are saying that without the US that the Allied Forces in France would have held the line after the Great German offensive in 1917?

Almost certainly, yes.

that the Allies could've gotten even close to Germany before the Soviet Union reached Berlin?

It wasn't a matter of Hitler winning, it was only a matter of how much land he controlled before Stalin eventually crushed him.

If the US had not intervened in either case I can assure you the World would be extremely different.

Who knows? You're certainly not an expert on the subject and neither are any of us to my understanding.

[The Occident]

I'd say 'yes.' No party that unsuccessfully elects to repeal a piece of legislation almost 35 times, has members that believe in "legitimate" rape and can claim the 'Tea Party' could possibly be doing anything to move the US forward.

As a Republican, I thought it was wierd at first, but as 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 wore on and have come and gone, it literally seems like the GOP's primary goal was making sure Obama was only able to serve one term.

[Esternial]

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

Are you seriously afraid of North Korea or Iran invading the US? Really?

Kewl how we can call entire countries insane, like as if the entire geographical region would rise up, pick up a broken bottle and start waving it around the Middle East or something.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Yes, jumping in after a great majority of the war has been fought on the soil of other countries and those countries have fields literally running red with the blood of their own soldiers is certainly doing them a 'favor'.

I don't know about you, but the incessant crowing we do about how we 'won' WWII for the Allies is probably incredibly fucking annoying to the people that fought the war for five fucking years before we jumped in.

So you are saying that without the US that the Allied Forces in France would have held the line after the Great German offensive in 1917? that the Allies could've gotten even close to Germany before the Soviet Union reached Berlin? If the US had not intervened in either case I can assure you the World would be extremely different.

Most likely. We had blockaded Germany by that time, and we maintained a slight advantage in numbers; most of their allies were falling apart by that stage anyway. the entry of the US certainly hastened the end of the war, with German military commanders and the population believing they couldn't win agains the Allies new combined might.

And I grant you for the Second World War, things would probably be different: we'd probably be seeing an East/West France rather than Germany, but unless Stalin planned an instantaneous offensive things would probably pan out the same as they did in the real world.

[Euronion]

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

So are you saying we should wait a few years for the US to be softened up, sell them the weapons they need for a quick buck and eventually join in if they piss us off?

Seriously though, neither Iran nor North Korea could feasibly reach the US, even if spending was at a tenth of what it is now. Few nations possess the military capability to even invade the US, and the majority of those are allied or at the very least on neutral tems.

I'm not suggesting that per se. If the Iranians get Nuclear Weapons you can be sure that they will attack Israel. The US will be forced to intervene. It is expensive to keep the Navy in the Persian Gulf. If the Saudis and the Iranians get into it, we'd be in pretty deep shit with oil prices. If the Koreans can develop a nuclear weapon small enough to strap on to a rocket, you can be sure that they are going to use it against South Korea. The US will be forced to intervene there. If the Japanese and the Chinese get into it the US will be forced to intervene as we are obligated to defend the Japanese. We will be fighting a war on three fronts. The Chinese already have close relations with North Korea and both have relations with Iran, should they form a coalition, Russia will not oppose them. That leaves the US, Britain, and France to fight a war against an extremely powerful enemy. The British and the French will say that it is not their problem, they did not have an alliance with South Korea and Israel, they did not have an obligation to defend the Japanese.

[Virgo]

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for awhile. Sure trying to save the nation from bankruptcy when we have a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT is holding us back?! People get real the democrats are trying to bankrupt this country and have succeeded. George Bush wasn't a real conservative he grew the size of government. I adhere mostly to libertarianism and resent how people label republicans in ways that aren't even true. If anything the Republican Party is the LAST hope of this country. Dems want to tax everyone more and more and "spread the wealth". I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

So are you saying we should wait a few years for the US to be softened up, sell them the weapons they need for a quick buck and eventually join in if they piss us off?

Seriously though, neither Iran nor North Korea could feasibly reach the US, even if spending was at a tenth of what it is now. Few nations possess the military capability to even invade the US, and the majority of those are allied or at the very least on neutral tems.

The Chinese already have close relations with North Korea

uh-huh

[Gauntleted Fist]

I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

When cutting spending directly causes people to go hungry, lose their job (And consequently everything that job was paying for if they cannot transfer to unemployment), and causes significant hardship for the economy, then yes. Cutting spending is a fucking terrible thing.

[Euronion]

So you are saying that without the US that the Allied Forces in France would have held the line after the Great German offensive in 1917?

Almost certainly, yes.

that the Allies could've gotten even close to Germany before the Soviet Union reached Berlin?

It wasn't a matter of Hitler winning, it was only a matter of how much land he controlled before Stalin eventually crushed him.

If the US had not intervened in either case I can assure you the World would be extremely different.

Who knows? You're certainly not an expert on the subject and neither are any of us to my understanding.

1. No, you wouldn't have, the US troops provided not only a boost in morale but a boost in numbers and organization. It reinforced the Allied Lines against a flood of German troops. The Germans would've broken through. The German U-boats were pretty effective at taking out the British Navy. Without the US entering the war, Continental Europe would be under rule of the Central Powers.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for awhile. Sure trying to save the nation from bankruptcy when we have a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT is holding us back?! People get real the democrats are trying to bankrupt this country and have succeeded. George Bush wasn't a real conservative he grew the size of government. I adhere mostly to libertarianism and resent how people label republicans in ways that aren't even true. If anything the Republican Party is the LAST hope of this country. Dems want to tax everyone more and more and "spread the wealth". I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

It isn't, the problem is what services do you want to cut, answer, social security, pensions for the elderly and other social programs that strengthened the middle class.

[Gauntleted Fist]

1. No, you wouldn't have, the US troops provided not only a boost in morale but a boost in numbers and organization. It reinforced the Allied Lines against a flood of German troops. The Germans would've broken through. The German U-boats were pretty effective at taking out the British Navy. Without the US entering the war, Continental Europe would be under rule of the Central Powers.

If by Central Powers you mean the Soviet Union.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

When cutting spending directly causes people to go hungry, lose their job (And consequently everything that job was paying for if they cannot transfer to unemployment), and causes significant hardship for the economy, then yes. Cutting spending is a fucking terrible thing.

No, you just have to cut the spending that aren't worth like excessive military spending or increasing taxes for the wealthy and the corporations.

[Twilliamson]

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for awhile. Sure trying to save the nation from bankruptcy when we have a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT is holding us back?! People get real the democrats are trying to bankrupt this country and have succeeded. George Bush wasn't a real conservative he grew the size of government. I adhere mostly to libertarianism and resent how people label republicans in ways that aren't even true. If anything the Republican Party is the LAST hope of this country. Dems want to tax everyone more and more and "spread the wealth". I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

if they have smart cuts then everyone would be fine.

[Esternial]

This is the most idiotic thread I've seen for awhile. Sure trying to save the nation from bankruptcy when we have a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT is holding us back?! People get real the democrats are trying to bankrupt this country and have succeeded. George Bush wasn't a real conservative he grew the size of government. I adhere mostly to libertarianism and resent how people label republicans in ways that aren't even true. If anything the Republican Party is the LAST hope of this country. Dems want to tax everyone more and more and "spread the wealth". I didn't know cutting spending was a bad thing!

>This is the most idiotic thread.
>It's obviously the Democrats' fault.

Exhibit A: What is wrong with America.

[The Free and Just Republic of Freedomol]

No sane power, though to call Iran and North Korea sane would be a great stretch. I also doubt any of our "allies" will support us. It seems like most Europeans secretly despise the US. When faced with the prospect of returning the favor we paid them in WWI and WWII, I doubt they'd be willing to send their soldiers to save us.

Yes, jumping in after a great majority of the war has been fought on the soil of other countries and those countries have fields literally running red with the blood of their own soldiers is certainly doing them a 'favor'.

I don't know about you, but the incessant crowing we do about how we 'won' WWI/WWII for the Allies is probably incredibly fucking annoying to the people that fought the war for four (And three respectively) fucking years before we jumped in.

I seriously doubt that Americas allies would have lost the war even without america's intervention. However, you are downplaying how much the U.S. did help: by entering the war, even late, we likely saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives by ending both WW1 and WW2 faster. If it hadn't been for the marshall plan and the debt forgiveness the US enacted after WW2, europe would likely be a much crappier place to live in, and japan would likely have been invaded by the soviets.

[Euronion]

The Chinese already have close relations with North Korea

uh-huh

They have the closest relations with North Korea next to Iran. They greeted Kim Jung Un, the State Paper hailed the Onion Article that claimed him the hottest man on Earth.

[Gauntleted Fist]

No, you just have to cut the spending that aren't worth like excessive military spending

Even cutting military spending can be extremely harmful because the first people to suffer are the civilian employees of the DoD. There are 800,000 of them. It needs to be worked out so that we actually reduce the size of our military expenditure without unduly harming the future of DoD employees. Either by giving them job referrals and retraining or moving them to sustainable roles in different departments.

or increasing taxes for the wealthy and the corporations.

Yes. This would be good.

[Euronion]

1. No, you wouldn't have, the US troops provided not only a boost in morale but a boost in numbers and organization. It reinforced the Allied Lines against a flood of German troops. The Germans would've broken through. The German U-boats were pretty effective at taking out the British Navy. Without the US entering the war, Continental Europe would be under rule of the Central Powers.

If by Central Powers you mean the Soviet Union.

I was speaking of WWI, though the Soviet Union would've had no cause to invade the Central Powers in WWII as there would've been no WWII, at least not on the Western Front. Hitler would've never come to power, the Kaiser would've used the industry he captured after WWI (remember the cities weren't decimated and did not require so much rebuilding like in WWII. He would've used that to modernize the army to match anything the new borne Soviet Union could've come up with. He might've even tried attacking the weak Soviets to put the Tsar back into Power, not the old Tsar, but a Tsar, one sympathetic to the German cause.

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

No, you just have to cut the spending that aren't worth like excessive military spending

Even cutting military spending can be extremely harmful because the first people to suffer are the civilian employees of the DoD. There are 800,000 of them. It needs to be worked out so that we actually reduce the size of our military expenditure without unduly harming the future of DoD employees. Either by giving them job referrals and retraining or moving them to sustainable roles in different departments.

I'm not saying drastically cut the military, I'm saying cut back excessive money that is in the military.

[Euronion]

No, you just have to cut the spending that aren't worth like excessive military spending

Even cutting military spending can be extremely harmful because the first people to suffer are the civilian employees of the DoD. There are 800,000 of them. It needs to be worked out so that we actually reduce the size of our military expenditure without unduly harming the future of DoD employees. Either by giving them job referrals and retraining or moving them to sustainable roles in different departments.

or increasing taxes for the wealthy and the corporations.

Yes. This would be good.

I agree with you about not cutting the military, though I do not think we should raise taxes. Drives people and business away.