The fact is, no one wants to give up the lip lock on the government teat. Until that happens, expect more of the same. Perhaps Galt was right when he said that he would put a stop to the whole thing, by crashing the system.

The only lives the soviets held in sanctity was their own. Given that they slaughtered more Russians than the Nazis, they obviously didn't hold life sacred.

+1 Totally agree Freedomforall.

Its cronycapitalism! Boeing, General Dynamics, and all the other defense contractors need us to be at war so they can sell more stuff.

Bullshit (neocon) irrational unethical argument that has been used for centuries to justify murder of innocent people in order to steal their resources.
Herb, you might be able to do it if you could control everyone else, but you can't. Power corrupts and military power corrupts worse than most.
Using the resources we have to improve technology would be a much better defense than invading other coutries, killing civilians, and enriching the "military industrial complex.).

Yes, we would win in the long run, but still, many would die. It would be better to prevent fights, especially at home, if a show of force overseas could prevent it.

The one advantage the negotiations with the Soviets have that the negotiations with the Iranians do not is that American and former Soviet leaders share a similiar cultural perspective about sanctitity of life. The chilling problem, imo, of dealing with muslim fundamentalist regimes is their lack of regard for life. Kind of makes it hard to negotiate if your adversary has that view.

The GOP is war-addicted because of all its friends and cronies in the weapons business. Follow the money!

Just switch "Soviet Union" with "Iran", and this line from the movie still works:

"I think the signing of a nuclear disarmament pact with the Soviet Union is at best an act of naivete, and at worst an unsupportable negligence. We've stayed alive because we've built up an arsenal, and we've kept the peace because we've dealt with an enemy who knew we would use that arsenal. And now we're asked to believe that a piece of paper will take the place of missile sites and Polaris submarines, and that an enemy who hasn't honored one solemn treaty in the history of its existence will now, for our convenience, do precisely that. I have strong doubts, gentlemen." General Scott, "Seven Days In May"

I am referring only to right now and the Presidential Debates.

I am just talking about the current Presidential debates.

I am only referring to today and Presidential Debates.

I am all for protecting us from danger. I am against fighting other countrys' wars. I think our military is big enough to protect our country.

Exactly! It was put best in a cold war-era movie:

“I'm suggesting, Senator, there hasn't been a single piece of paper written in the history of mankind that could serve as a deterrent to a Pearl Harbor. I sometimes wonder why we haven't learned that lesson by now. Every twenty years or so we have to pick ourselves up off the floor bleeding, and have to pay for that mistake. And I might add, Senator, those mistakes are delivered to us C.O.D. by peace-loving men. And bought and paid for with the lives of other men. Men in uniform.” General Scott, "Seven Days In May"

I know that democrats have been war mongers in the past. I believe David Stockman is talking about right now. And he is only referring to the current presidential debates

I have been saying for awhile that the military is the GOPs welfare. Our foreign policy is out of wack, our military is way too big and spread over far too many countries (those who defend everything defend nothing), and our military tactics and weapons have not been updated for todays technology. For instance, we do not need an F-22 or a F-35. Piloted fighters, where the pilot is the limiting factor, are absurd.

I am mixed on Stockman. He argued for raising taxes under Reagan. His analysis is usually no better than what I call the simple accountants mentality and ultimately he is not for freedom, he is a true conservative.

It's not really a party issue per say. Rather it is a power and money issue as always...oh yeah and those pesky liquid carbons and other resources.

As far as the 10 captives go, there is no doubt in my mind that it was a put up job. The question is, however, can the USA be an isolationist country in the world as it is made up of nations and technology today? With technology available to almost all nations, good, bad, or ugly, what happens anywhere in the world can and does affect us. Should we wait until it does, or should we act in the affairs of happenings all over the world in order to influence them from impinging on us negatively. Even though the conditions in America are deteriorating, we still want to keep ourselves safe. Is our perceptions via Washington so distorted that we can opt out of geopolitics and power moves and still remain safe? After all, when all is said and done, isn't protecting the citizens from danger, foreign and domestic, the chief reason for a government to exist at all?

As the daughter of a 'cold warrior' the phrase "peace through strength" is forever drummed into my head. Not being the foreign policy expert my pop was, I'll take him at his word that military conflict arises from military weakness, not from military strength. I think current times are proof enough of that. So every admin that guts our military can be looked at as having caused a war, regardless of what political administration sends the go order.