Our government is in CRISIS - worst situation since the civil war

[TexasAg1969]

4 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I think the biggest problem is the way our system of government is set up. With a budget bill needing 60 votes to pass in the Senate the republican are unable to pass a budget they want but have to have democrat support to get over 60 votes as the republicans only have 53 senators. What seems to happen is to get a bill passed the dems get pretty much all the spending they want and then the republicans do the same. 

Give Trump credit for seeing we needed a tax cut to get the economy going. Obama never had this kind of economy in his 8 years because he never considered tax cuts.

To cut our national debt and deficit there are some things we can do such as cutting spending, and trying to grow the economy through tax cuts. I think doing both of those things are the best way. The dems seem to think we can spend our way out of debt through stimulus programs and higher taxes which are proven failures yet they continue to want to go down this road.

And this morning they are reporting a  77% increase in deficit four months into this fiscal year so far and a huge jump in trade deficit. There just are not any good answers when neither party will deal with the other in a responsible way.

[OldBrownsFan]

Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq  which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.

[TexasAg1969]

2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Also Tex on the military front. You are a Vietnam vet and this is my opinion as a veteran myself who was not in Vietnam (but my brother was). Should we have gone to war in Vietnam? I think the answer is no of course with 20/20 hindsight. We needed to learn the lesson of Vietnam and not go to war without clear objectives and goals to win the war. I think there is a better way to fight terrorism than the failed nation building we have tried in Afghanistan and Iraq  which cost us many lives and trillions of dollars. We should follow the example of Israel who has had lots of experience in fighting terrorism. When terrorists attack Israel they identify who they are and then they start showing up dead which is better and more effective and less costly than the wars we have been involved in. Israel also is a good example of walls working as the wall they have built has taken terrorists attacks down to about zero. Their anti missile shield has also proven to be a good success.

I used to think the Vietnam War was a big mistake, especially when I predicted we would eventually lose after I had come back. I was right about that part, but once the Berlin wall came down along with the old Soviet Union I began to think maybe we had bankrupted them so badly (along with their Afgan fiasco), that just maybe the long term end result had had an effect. Now that Putin is trying too rebuild it, who knows. Of course you know how I feel about current efforts being more in line with what Putin wants and not what America wants. Trump was a gift to them as evidenced in Helsinki. And as long as we stay aligned with the Saudi's for big oil, we will be dealing with Islamic terrorists. I say let 'em choke on it and spend our time working with Guyana, Venezuela, Permian basin and Canadian sands. Venezuelan oil is a better and more likely place to get going again if we assist them in getting their democracy back. That is one place I do support Trump.

[calfoxwc]

the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?

I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and  Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.

He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.

Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.

[calfoxwc]

16 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I used to think the Vietnam War was a big mistake, especially when I predicted we would eventually lose after I had come back. I was right about that part, but once the Berlin wall came down along with the old Soviet Union I began to think maybe we had bankrupted them so badly (along with their Afgan fiasco), that just maybe the long term end result had had an effect. Now that Putin is trying too rebuild it, who knows. Of course you know how I feel about current efforts being more in line with what Putin wants and not what America wants. Trump was a gift to them as evidenced in Helsinki. And as long as we stay aligned with the Saudi's for big oil, we will be dealing with Islamic terrorists. I say let 'em choke on it and spend our time working with Guyana, Venezuela, Permian basin and Canadian sands. Venezuelan oil is a better and more likely place to get going again if we assist them in getting their democracy back. That is one place I do support Trump.

Yep. I like that.

[OldBrownsFan]

39 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

the subject of Vietnam is a tough one. What did they call it back then? "war of attrition" ?what in the ....?

I remember the Gulf of Tonkin bs. and  Lyndon Johnson's "limited forever war" -such a disgrace. My older cousin was an advisor to South Vietnamese ..."platoons" ?... in Laos and Cambodia.

He left a funny, popular with everybody guy, but came back as a sullen, very quiet, short tempered soul.

Never again - the Iraq war - I asked my friend who was in intel there, and he was always more a liberal than a few liberals on this board - (made for funny arguments between the two of us)...and he said we *absolutely had to go into Iraq - if all the American people knew the classified info, they would all agree. But as far as nation building - it's just a very tough way to go for many reasons. Too many years, too far a reach for different cultures.

When we were arming and sending advisers to Vietnam under Kennedy I think we had it right but we should have drawn the line at not fighting the war for South Vietnam. If arming and sending advisers was not enough Johnson should have just cut bait instead of sending more and more of our soldiers to fight the war. 

In the first Gulf war I thought Bush Sr. did an incredible job of mobilizing multi nations and driving out Sadaam from Kuwait. I thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein but Colin Powell was right when he said if we broke it we bought it (meaning the price of nation building). 

When we fought the Iraq war under Bush Jr. I saw why Colin Powell was correct. We had Hussein under a containment policy and a no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Containment was probably the best option instead of a costly war and nation building. I thought when we liberated Iraq from Hussein we would be welcomed like the French did with us when we drove out the Nazis. We weren't. For me that is when I learned that in Muslim countries even when trying to help them we are always going to be the infidels and we are better off not getting involved in their conflicts. 

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

When we were arming and sending advisers to Vietnam under Kennedy I think we had it right but we should have drawn the line at not fighting the war for South Vietnam. If arming and sending advisers was not enough Johnson should have just cut bait instead of sending more and more of our soldiers to fight the war. 

In the first Gulf war I thought Bush Sr. did an incredible job of mobilizing multi nations and driving out Sadaam from Kuwait. I thought at the time we should have gone into Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein but Colin Powell was right when he said if we broke it we bought it (meaning the price of nation building). 

When we fought the Iraq war under Bush Jr. I saw why Colin Powell was correct. We had Hussein under a containment policy and a no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Containment was probably the best option instead of a costly war and nation building. I thought when we liberated Iraq from Hussein we would be welcomed like the French did with us when we drove out the Nazis. We weren't. For me that is when I learned that in Muslim countries even when trying to help them we are always going to be the infidels and we are better off not getting involved in their conflicts. 

  Exactly. Staying and trying to build them a nation was just strange, with all the hatred from certain factions that will never? end.

 

[Clevfan4life]

I dudnr think the soviet union was heavily involved with vietnam. That was china that was backing the vietcong. What i always read bankrupred the soviets was the high missile and rocket r&d. Not just for their milutary but also their space program.