In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Military Vets For Clinton?
https://www.facebook.com/MilitaryVetsforClinton/
I figure such a group could have its meetings in a phone booth.
I figure such a group could have its meetings in a phone booth.
Comments
If you can't feel the music; it's only pink noise!
Why they would go towards Clinton over Johnson doesn't make a lot of sense.
Brad Steele
I am for doing what ever that will keep my country safe...do it![;)]
Do you believe that 'water boarding and worse' and killing the families of jihadists will keep your country safe?
These very acts would demonstrate that my country no longer existed.
Brad Steele
It is incomprehensible that any Military Vet could vote for that POS!
You're referring to Trump, correct?
Well said
The Hillary Forum is on the other page.....[:o)]
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
I am for doing what ever that will keep my country safe...do it![;)]
Do you believe that 'water boarding and worse' and killing the families of jihadists will keep your country safe?
These very acts would demonstrate that my country no longer existed.
I believe in winning at all cost...! No Quarter!...especially if I am at war!....Chivalry died at Appomattox..
https://www.facebook.com/MilitaryVetsforClinton/
I figure such a group could have its meetings in a phone booth.
However, the TYPICAL FULL CROWD might need a larger venue, like half a basketball court.
When her challenger has stated that he would ask our military to torture combatants and kill their families, I guess I can understand a professional military man thinking about alternatives.
Why they would go towards Clinton over Johnson doesn't make a lot of sense.
Most military active and retired have figured out a vote for Johnson is a defacto vote for MRs Bill Clinton.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
When her challenger has stated that he would ask our military to torture combatants and kill their families, I guess I can understand a professional military man thinking about alternatives.
Why they would go towards Clinton over Johnson doesn't make a lot of sense.
Most military active and retired have figured out a vote for Johnson is a defacto vote for MRs Bill Clinton.
Cowering to the two-party mantra is not 'figuring out'.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
When her challenger has stated that he would ask our military to torture combatants and kill their families, I guess I can understand a professional military man thinking about alternatives.
Why they would go towards Clinton over Johnson doesn't make a lot of sense.
Most military active and retired have figured out a vote for Johnson is a defacto vote for MRs Bill Clinton.
Cowering to the two-party mantra is not 'figuring out'.
The libertarian POV unless it has changed involves closing All overseas bases and an unprecedented scaling back of at least 60% of the military. Some libertarians go so far as wanting to totally dismantle the nuclear triad and a total non intervention policy.
If Neville Chamberlain was alive today, he would be a libertarian.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by chiefr
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
When her challenger has stated that he would ask our military to torture combatants and kill their families, I guess I can understand a professional military man thinking about alternatives.
Why they would go towards Clinton over Johnson doesn't make a lot of sense.
Most military active and retired have figured out a vote for Johnson is a defacto vote for MRs Bill Clinton.
Cowering to the two-party mantra is not 'figuring out'.
The libertarian POV unless it has changed involves closing All overseas bases and an unprecedented scaling back of at least 60% of the military. Some libertarians go so far as wanting to totally dismantle the nuclear triad and a total non intervention policy.
If Neville Chamberlain was alive today, he would be a libertarian.
It is a common mistake to conflate principled non-intervention with disengagement and institutional cowardice. The current platform and position papers do encourage the removal of U.S. Forces from foreign countries, and rather vaguely states that the military needs to be sufficient to safeguard the United States from attack, placing an emphasis upon Constitutionally vetted intelligence gathering and cooperation over bellicosity and sabre rattling. Any reasonable person will recognize that the maintenance of a robust nuclear deterrent is a necessary part of this equation. (This is not to say all Libertarians are reasonable. There are obviously outliers that would take disarmament to irresponsible levels.)
However:
We know the current model does not work.
We know the Chamberlain model did not work.
The Libertarian position is somewhere in between the two, and yes, would scale back significantly our military spending and number of forward deployed personnel. When we spend as much as the next 8 - 10 countries combined (depending upon the calculation methodology) there is obvious room for significant reduction if a more responsible and less aggressive military stance were to be maintained by the U.S.
Brad Steele