I don't understand the logic of your comment, and am not sure it was directed to me anyway. But I'm not "picking sides" nor am I particularly "liberal" on this issue.
I think the world is becoming more, not less, dangerous; I think we need a more powerful, not a weaker, military; I think the active-duty Army needs more, not fewer, combat units; I think we should be spending more, not less, on the military. I've actually posted on this topic before.
At the same time, I think we should using that military wisely, and I don't feel the current Iraq War fits that description.
I see no contradiction between being for a bigger military and also being for peace and more carefully chosen foreign involvement.
An analogy: carrying a gun doesn't mean you try to use it as much as possible.
Quote:
Originally posted by djmcmath
Ok, so let me get this straight: Because the Iraq war is bad, and because we can loosely tie a 15 year old doctrine shift into Iraq, then a reduction in military capability is also bad? So now, liberals are for more military, because conservatives are for Iraq? It's like we've picked sides on the issue based on a bizarre train of logic and the stance that our "opponent" took, rather than based directly on the issue.
You know, it used to be so simple, now nobody makes sense anymore. Can I be for a bigger military, but also for peace, and less foreign involvement?
|