<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arguing the War</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:37:10 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-164738</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-164738</guid>
		<description>Please move to Iraq or Afganastan...  I am very tired of people being so negative about what our country is doing and what we stand for... Bottom line is, we suffered from 9-11...  Our econimc hardship today is what the Terrorist were trying to accomplish (they are much smarter than we give them credit for). They are barbaric. What would our lives be like if we never did anything... Imagine this; once a week there would be suicide bombings in Times Square, downtown Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly, Atlanta, D.C. etc... Your family is on a tour bus of Manahattan and is blown up for no reason but for the fact that they are American.

I can assure you that there are many people in the countries that we are fighting for who will thank the US in 15-20 years. Have some patience and more importantly, some pride.  If it weren&#039;t for the liberal media this war honestly would be over by now... but the problem is our soldiers are constantly under the microscope, handcuffed by their own people which slows down the process tremendously and costs US soldiers lives.  This point is explained in &quot;Lone Survivor&quot;; every American should read this book by the way.

Please leave this country if you don&#039;t like it...  If you want the war to end, leave the military alone and let them do their job...it would be over in about a year.

I support our troops, I support humanity and what it takes to ensure people all over the world live free.  Remember those videos of the Hussain boys making innocent people walk off of two story buildings, blindfolded and handcuffed?  The mass graves and executions?  Who knows what else they were doing. Yeah, your right, that country needed no intervention.  Saddam, great guy; right?

Sometimes it doesn&#039;t go exactly as planned; that&#039;s war.  But you still have to keep your eye on the prize at all costs, no matter how long.  Many people in our Country have lost their focus and the media sometimes is our own worst enemy on the battlefield...  I do hope the war is over soon...however under our terms... Being defeated or retreating is not an option because our world will be much, much worse if that were to happen.

Sincerely...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please move to Iraq or Afganastan&#8230;  I am very tired of people being so negative about what our country is doing and what we stand for&#8230; Bottom line is, we suffered from 9-11&#8230;  Our econimc hardship today is what the Terrorist were trying to accomplish (they are much smarter than we give them credit for). They are barbaric. What would our lives be like if we never did anything&#8230; Imagine this; once a week there would be suicide bombings in Times Square, downtown Chicago, LA, Boston, Philly, Atlanta, D.C. etc&#8230; Your family is on a tour bus of Manahattan and is blown up for no reason but for the fact that they are American.</p>
<p>I can assure you that there are many people in the countries that we are fighting for who will thank the US in 15-20 years. Have some patience and more importantly, some pride.  If it weren&#8217;t for the liberal media this war honestly would be over by now&#8230; but the problem is our soldiers are constantly under the microscope, handcuffed by their own people which slows down the process tremendously and costs US soldiers lives.  This point is explained in &#8220;Lone Survivor&#8221;; every American should read this book by the way.</p>
<p>Please leave this country if you don&#8217;t like it&#8230;  If you want the war to end, leave the military alone and let them do their job&#8230;it would be over in about a year.</p>
<p>I support our troops, I support humanity and what it takes to ensure people all over the world live free.  Remember those videos of the Hussain boys making innocent people walk off of two story buildings, blindfolded and handcuffed?  The mass graves and executions?  Who knows what else they were doing. Yeah, your right, that country needed no intervention.  Saddam, great guy; right?</p>
<p>Sometimes it doesn&#8217;t go exactly as planned; that&#8217;s war.  But you still have to keep your eye on the prize at all costs, no matter how long.  Many people in our Country have lost their focus and the media sometimes is our own worst enemy on the battlefield&#8230;  I do hope the war is over soon&#8230;however under our terms&#8230; Being defeated or retreating is not an option because our world will be much, much worse if that were to happen.</p>
<p>Sincerely&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Okinawa</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-149525</link>
		<dc:creator>Okinawa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-149525</guid>
		<description>Through my readings on Okinawan history, society, and the Battle of Okinawa, I am rather confused.

From my readings I have found the following:

The beginning of the Pacific War

-Pearl Harbor appears to have been a stand down operation as shipping lanes were cleared for the Japanese, and various other bits of important information withheld; all very likely to have been orchestrated by the State Department/CFR/Freemasons.


The end of the Pacific War, like the beginning was even more mysterious.

- General Macarthur stated in his memoirs that the battles fought at the end of the war were all mismanaged, resulting in high loss in human lives on both sides.

- Prior to the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese moved the 9th Army from Okinawa to join the 10th Army Taiwan, late 1944, to Janaury1945. The 9th Army was known as one of the best fighting units. Researchers are still questioning this move.

- The Americans walked onto unprotected, undefended beaches on April 1, 1945. As an afterthought, the Japanese military reported that the beaches should have been protected

- An airport was constructed by thousands of Okinawans just prior to the battle. The undefended airport was immediately captured and secured by the Americans. 

- Civilians on Okinawa were divided. The elites were mostly moved off the main island to Taiwan, northern Japan, and possibly other islands. Some talented people were told to move to the north part of the Island of Okinawa. The remaining poor civilians were in the  southern battle zone. They were told to fight the Americans with sticks and commit suicide rather than surrender. Japanese soldier murdered Okinawan civilians.

- The American Commander on Okinawa, General Simon Bolivar Buckner, was inept. Bought from his recruit training position in Alaska, coordinated the effort which was questioned by many of his subordinates on Okinawa. Buckner was reportedly killed by a fragment of coral, which had entered his chest after a Japanese mortar landed nearby, on June 17/18 1945.

- Days later two Japanese Commanders on the Island committed suicide and the Battle was “officially” over on June 21, 1945.

Background:

Nations have used foreign conflicts to manage domestic issues.

Freemasons were getting a foothold in Japanese politics in the 1930s.

There was a eugenics program in place that promoted the sterilization of genetically inferior people. The wording appears to be very similar to the League of Nations’ eugenics proposal.

Okinawans were of very low human capital value.

Social disorder, Diaspora, and famine were driving people out of Okinawa since the 1890s.

The Japanese left the League of Nations in 1934, however, continued to pay membership fees until 1938.

During the Cairo Conference on November 27, 1943, the Cairo Declaration intended to separate Okinawa from Japanese Mainland, once Japan had surrendered.

Okinawa was made a UN Trusteeship immediately after the surrender of Japan. This is a secret to most people, however, document are open to the public.

Could we not conclude that the UN is at least partially responsible for the genocide on Okinawa? Any insight would be helpful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Through my readings on Okinawan history, society, and the Battle of Okinawa, I am rather confused.</p>
<p>From my readings I have found the following:</p>
<p>The beginning of the Pacific War</p>
<p>-Pearl Harbor appears to have been a stand down operation as shipping lanes were cleared for the Japanese, and various other bits of important information withheld; all very likely to have been orchestrated by the State Department/CFR/Freemasons.</p>
<p>The end of the Pacific War, like the beginning was even more mysterious.</p>
<p>- General Macarthur stated in his memoirs that the battles fought at the end of the war were all mismanaged, resulting in high loss in human lives on both sides.</p>
<p>- Prior to the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese moved the 9th Army from Okinawa to join the 10th Army Taiwan, late 1944, to Janaury1945. The 9th Army was known as one of the best fighting units. Researchers are still questioning this move.</p>
<p>- The Americans walked onto unprotected, undefended beaches on April 1, 1945. As an afterthought, the Japanese military reported that the beaches should have been protected</p>
<p>- An airport was constructed by thousands of Okinawans just prior to the battle. The undefended airport was immediately captured and secured by the Americans. </p>
<p>- Civilians on Okinawa were divided. The elites were mostly moved off the main island to Taiwan, northern Japan, and possibly other islands. Some talented people were told to move to the north part of the Island of Okinawa. The remaining poor civilians were in the  southern battle zone. They were told to fight the Americans with sticks and commit suicide rather than surrender. Japanese soldier murdered Okinawan civilians.</p>
<p>- The American Commander on Okinawa, General Simon Bolivar Buckner, was inept. Bought from his recruit training position in Alaska, coordinated the effort which was questioned by many of his subordinates on Okinawa. Buckner was reportedly killed by a fragment of coral, which had entered his chest after a Japanese mortar landed nearby, on June 17/18 1945.</p>
<p>- Days later two Japanese Commanders on the Island committed suicide and the Battle was “officially” over on June 21, 1945.</p>
<p>Background:</p>
<p>Nations have used foreign conflicts to manage domestic issues.</p>
<p>Freemasons were getting a foothold in Japanese politics in the 1930s.</p>
<p>There was a eugenics program in place that promoted the sterilization of genetically inferior people. The wording appears to be very similar to the League of Nations’ eugenics proposal.</p>
<p>Okinawans were of very low human capital value.</p>
<p>Social disorder, Diaspora, and famine were driving people out of Okinawa since the 1890s.</p>
<p>The Japanese left the League of Nations in 1934, however, continued to pay membership fees until 1938.</p>
<p>During the Cairo Conference on November 27, 1943, the Cairo Declaration intended to separate Okinawa from Japanese Mainland, once Japan had surrendered.</p>
<p>Okinawa was made a UN Trusteeship immediately after the surrender of Japan. This is a secret to most people, however, document are open to the public.</p>
<p>Could we not conclude that the UN is at least partially responsible for the genocide on Okinawa? Any insight would be helpful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Macinegun Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-111859</link>
		<dc:creator>Macinegun Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-111859</guid>
		<description>well, any reference to me being a soldier is a bad mistake, Mr. Gerald Spalda in particular. Thank you for your complimentary commendations. I am a Marine until I die.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well, any reference to me being a soldier is a bad mistake, Mr. Gerald Spalda in particular. Thank you for your complimentary commendations. I am a Marine until I die.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-99907</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-99907</guid>
		<description>MARINE-I’ll tell you another story. There was this one section of road through the city that we always got attacked on. Usually sniper fire or a small IED buried in the dirt next to the road. Anyway, I made friends with one of the local community leaders. In fact most of that stretch of road was his extended family. We were bringing him back to the FOB to talk to him and our truck got hit with an IED. The trigger man misjudged and blew it early so it was mostly superficial damage. Well, we took care of him and talked to him for a while. We bring him back later on and to this day, there hasn’t been an attack on that stretch of road. Understand, I’m not telling you stories because I like to wave my ego flag. I’m communicating a few things to you. I don’t know if you have ever served in an infantry unit in combat or not. I’m just explaining to you my appreciation of certain issues and how it directly relates to the subject at hand.

SCOTT–No, I’ve never been in the military. That is interesting, but, no offense intended, I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you’re getting at there.

I believe the point the Marine was trying to make is that once both sides put down their weapons and engaged in a dialogue, both sides had a better understanding of each other and the attacks stopped.  The conclusion you draw from the Marine&#039;s anecdote is irrefutable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MARINE-I’ll tell you another story. There was this one section of road through the city that we always got attacked on. Usually sniper fire or a small IED buried in the dirt next to the road. Anyway, I made friends with one of the local community leaders. In fact most of that stretch of road was his extended family. We were bringing him back to the FOB to talk to him and our truck got hit with an IED. The trigger man misjudged and blew it early so it was mostly superficial damage. Well, we took care of him and talked to him for a while. We bring him back later on and to this day, there hasn’t been an attack on that stretch of road. Understand, I’m not telling you stories because I like to wave my ego flag. I’m communicating a few things to you. I don’t know if you have ever served in an infantry unit in combat or not. I’m just explaining to you my appreciation of certain issues and how it directly relates to the subject at hand.</p>
<p>SCOTT–No, I’ve never been in the military. That is interesting, but, no offense intended, I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you’re getting at there.</p>
<p>I believe the point the Marine was trying to make is that once both sides put down their weapons and engaged in a dialogue, both sides had a better understanding of each other and the attacks stopped.  The conclusion you draw from the Marine&#8217;s anecdote is irrefutable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-94011</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-94011</guid>
		<description>You have a point there. It would be quite a risk to just see what would happen if we minimized our military no one could really say</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have a point there. It would be quite a risk to just see what would happen if we minimized our military no one could really say</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93951</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93951</guid>
		<description>I have to say that this is an very interesting debate. I have to say at first when i came across this i was a little angered. Anti war protests always make me wonder what i am fighting for some times. Because when we do i always think of my famliy and every family in the U.S. and all of my brothers and sisters fighting for you. But i see you make a very good point with your debate tho i cannot agree with you. Being in the USAF i don&#039;t fight anywhere near as much as a marine but i am so proud to be beside them i don&#039;t feel any rivaly or anything. Because when you are over there you are all one. I guess i have become more drawn to these things. I very much like your respectable approach and i thank you for atleast that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say that this is an very interesting debate. I have to say at first when i came across this i was a little angered. Anti war protests always make me wonder what i am fighting for some times. Because when we do i always think of my famliy and every family in the U.S. and all of my brothers and sisters fighting for you. But i see you make a very good point with your debate tho i cannot agree with you. Being in the USAF i don&#8217;t fight anywhere near as much as a marine but i am so proud to be beside them i don&#8217;t feel any rivaly or anything. Because when you are over there you are all one. I guess i have become more drawn to these things. I very much like your respectable approach and i thank you for atleast that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93816</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93816</guid>
		<description>Bill, another superpower does not currently exist because we have not let it.  There is the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum.  Such has always been the case throughout human history, everywhere.  Do you really think the Soviets would not have conquered Europe if we had not stopped them?  Would the UK or Russia have been able to holdout against Hitler if we had not stopped the Germans?  The navy so totally controls the world&#039;s oceans and to challenge that control is so expensive that no one is seriously trying to do so.  However, if the US Navy were not there then why would someone else not step in?  Are you arguing we could make do with a smaller force and it is valid to stop another superpower from forming or are you trying to say that we should shutdown our military forces outside the US or our coastal waters and trust that for the first time in human history no one else will try to expand or build a powerful military?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill, another superpower does not currently exist because we have not let it.  There is the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum.  Such has always been the case throughout human history, everywhere.  Do you really think the Soviets would not have conquered Europe if we had not stopped them?  Would the UK or Russia have been able to holdout against Hitler if we had not stopped the Germans?  The navy so totally controls the world&#8217;s oceans and to challenge that control is so expensive that no one is seriously trying to do so.  However, if the US Navy were not there then why would someone else not step in?  Are you arguing we could make do with a smaller force and it is valid to stop another superpower from forming or are you trying to say that we should shutdown our military forces outside the US or our coastal waters and trust that for the first time in human history no one else will try to expand or build a powerful military?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill K.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93736</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93736</guid>
		<description>Maybe a Fast Reaction Corps is needed. Not specifically specialized Airborne or Marine Divisions, but just Fast Reaction troops capable of both Marine and Airborne landing. Maybe even some kind of Specialized Commando Brigades that fit many different parameters.

I think Guam is more defensible and has less traffic than Japan. Maybe some are worried about a Chinese Bomber assault and don&#039;t want to be too close to China.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe a Fast Reaction Corps is needed. Not specifically specialized Airborne or Marine Divisions, but just Fast Reaction troops capable of both Marine and Airborne landing. Maybe even some kind of Specialized Commando Brigades that fit many different parameters.</p>
<p>I think Guam is more defensible and has less traffic than Japan. Maybe some are worried about a Chinese Bomber assault and don&#8217;t want to be too close to China.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill K.</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93734</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93734</guid>
		<description>Why does the US keep those 500 or so Minuteman III ICBMs around? Here I thought it was to prevent an invasion from this &quot;hypothetical&quot; Superpower waiting to attack the US over the horizon.

You know what, this &quot;hypothetical&quot; Superpower does not exist. And won&#039;t for decades. You think China or India are going to be doing an &quot;Okinawa&quot; style invasion of the US West Coast? With what forces? A dozen modern Guided Missile Destroyers and a Helicopter platform training vessel(in China&#039;s case)? All the Major countries other than the US are organized around a Defensive Force structure. China&#039;s Warships don&#039;t even have a long range Land Attack Missile in service. The US Navy has how many Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticonderoga Cruisers in service? Compare that with any Fleet in the World, the US Navy has more Modern major warships than all the Major World Navies combined. The Structure of the US Military is designed for Empire. Why do you think they got rid of the Missile Hydrofoils and built more Destroyers? Because defense of the country is irrelevant, it is Global Control they are looking for in the Pentagon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why does the US keep those 500 or so Minuteman III ICBMs around? Here I thought it was to prevent an invasion from this &#8220;hypothetical&#8221; Superpower waiting to attack the US over the horizon.</p>
<p>You know what, this &#8220;hypothetical&#8221; Superpower does not exist. And won&#8217;t for decades. You think China or India are going to be doing an &#8220;Okinawa&#8221; style invasion of the US West Coast? With what forces? A dozen modern Guided Missile Destroyers and a Helicopter platform training vessel(in China&#8217;s case)? All the Major countries other than the US are organized around a Defensive Force structure. China&#8217;s Warships don&#8217;t even have a long range Land Attack Missile in service. The US Navy has how many Arleigh Burke Destroyers and Ticonderoga Cruisers in service? Compare that with any Fleet in the World, the US Navy has more Modern major warships than all the Major World Navies combined. The Structure of the US Military is designed for Empire. Why do you think they got rid of the Missile Hydrofoils and built more Destroyers? Because defense of the country is irrelevant, it is Global Control they are looking for in the Pentagon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Former Marine</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93597</link>
		<dc:creator>Former Marine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93597</guid>
		<description>Interesting debate and I&#039;ll be the one to thank you for having it yet side with my fellow jarhead.  It has been enlightening and I commend you both.  I am especially proud of my Marine for having the patience, courage and intellect to engage in what I cannot bring myself to do.

I would ask you Mr Horton however that you show as much courtesy as he does by presenting his posting uninterupted as you are awarded the luxury of doing so here.  The constant interuption of his every point with your self justification for debate is rude and quite frankly, a bit shrill.

Thank you and Semper Fi</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting debate and I&#8217;ll be the one to thank you for having it yet side with my fellow jarhead.  It has been enlightening and I commend you both.  I am especially proud of my Marine for having the patience, courage and intellect to engage in what I cannot bring myself to do.</p>
<p>I would ask you Mr Horton however that you show as much courtesy as he does by presenting his posting uninterupted as you are awarded the luxury of doing so here.  The constant interuption of his every point with your self justification for debate is rude and quite frankly, a bit shrill.</p>
<p>Thank you and Semper Fi</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93580</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93580</guid>
		<description>Scott,

One point I have not heard addressed by the Ron Paul wing is the idea that the fundamental goal of US policy is to ensure no other power rises that can challenge the US.  I agree that in a sense at least we are an, or even the, empire.  However, I would argue you have not suggested any practical way for us to avoid that role without allowing a different and greater empire to arise that would then have the ability to control, or at least invade or threaten, us.  I have no real argument with your concerns or goals.  I just have yet to hear you provide a practical way to achieve them that does not leave us worse off than our current situation.  You could argue we have gone too far and should scale our efforts back but that is not what you seem to say.  You seem to be opposed to the entire concept of the US acting to prevent or postpone the rise of a greater power.  If we don&#039;t fill the vacuum, then someone else inevitably will.  Why do you not believe that to be the case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott,</p>
<p>One point I have not heard addressed by the Ron Paul wing is the idea that the fundamental goal of US policy is to ensure no other power rises that can challenge the US.  I agree that in a sense at least we are an, or even the, empire.  However, I would argue you have not suggested any practical way for us to avoid that role without allowing a different and greater empire to arise that would then have the ability to control, or at least invade or threaten, us.  I have no real argument with your concerns or goals.  I just have yet to hear you provide a practical way to achieve them that does not leave us worse off than our current situation.  You could argue we have gone too far and should scale our efforts back but that is not what you seem to say.  You seem to be opposed to the entire concept of the US acting to prevent or postpone the rise of a greater power.  If we don&#8217;t fill the vacuum, then someone else inevitably will.  Why do you not believe that to be the case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J</title>
		<link>http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/comment-page-1/#comment-93578</link>
		<dc:creator>J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/26/arguing-the-war/#comment-93578</guid>
		<description>Very interesting debate with a Marine, who are by far the most patriotic of our military forces.  I am in the Navy, but I don&#039;t buy the whole BS that comes down from the higher echelon in DC.   To be honest I am all for a massive reduction in the size of our military, there is just too much redundancy between all the services.  How many air elements do we really need?  Do we really need a Navy and a Coast Guard?  If counter-insurgency type of operations is the future, then what is the point of a massive Army?  I think the Marines would fit the mobility needed to react to situations...like getting our embassy staff out of countries, Kenya comes to mind right now. I am far from being an expert, but whatever happened to us using our soft-power?

I spent many a boring day doing circles around an oil rig on a large deck Amphib, in the Gulf asking myself, &quot;Why the hell are we here.&quot;  Actually, I knew why but again I didn&#039;t buy into the BS being thrown at us each and every day at our daily muster. Now I sit in another controversial place, think Caribbean, and ponder why is this base even here.  

  I would like to add that as far as pre-positioning a rapid response force is a simple solution and is currently in the works, if that is an objective.  A large element of the 31st MEU is planned to move to the Island of Guam, considering that all policy makers are pointing to Southeast Asia as being the future hotbed.  It wouldn&#039;t surprise me if they decided to move the Amphib ships from Sasebo to Guam, reducing our footprint throughout Japan.  Hell, the Japanese are tired of footing the bill for us being there and I can&#039;t blame them, considering recent debate in their diet.  But more importantly, the Ryukuans are tired of housing our military machine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting debate with a Marine, who are by far the most patriotic of our military forces.  I am in the Navy, but I don&#8217;t buy the whole BS that comes down from the higher echelon in DC.   To be honest I am all for a massive reduction in the size of our military, there is just too much redundancy between all the services.  How many air elements do we really need?  Do we really need a Navy and a Coast Guard?  If counter-insurgency type of operations is the future, then what is the point of a massive Army?  I think the Marines would fit the mobility needed to react to situations&#8230;like getting our embassy staff out of countries, Kenya comes to mind right now. I am far from being an expert, but whatever happened to us using our soft-power?</p>
<p>I spent many a boring day doing circles around an oil rig on a large deck Amphib, in the Gulf asking myself, &#8220;Why the hell are we here.&#8221;  Actually, I knew why but again I didn&#8217;t buy into the BS being thrown at us each and every day at our daily muster. Now I sit in another controversial place, think Caribbean, and ponder why is this base even here.  </p>
<p>  I would like to add that as far as pre-positioning a rapid response force is a simple solution and is currently in the works, if that is an objective.  A large element of the 31st MEU is planned to move to the Island of Guam, considering that all policy makers are pointing to Southeast Asia as being the future hotbed.  It wouldn&#8217;t surprise me if they decided to move the Amphib ships from Sasebo to Guam, reducing our footprint throughout Japan.  Hell, the Japanese are tired of footing the bill for us being there and I can&#8217;t blame them, considering recent debate in their diet.  But more importantly, the Ryukuans are tired of housing our military machine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
