Zim: "But if there is no 'U.S. Military Might' . . . it will only be a matter of time before there is no 'U.S. Freedom'."
(1) I didn't say "no US Military Might" - did you deliberately make a straw man argument[a], because you can't win with logic and facts, or did you not know you were doing that?
I have several times, and at considerable length, pointed out that overextension & fighting on multiple fronts are basic military blunders and a classic sign of gross incompetence in military strategy. We are losing world respect and looking beyond foolish to anyone who knows history. We can't defend our own border; recruitment is in collapse; we are bleeding out economically, with debt exploding almost 10X in 20 years; we seldom if ever decisively win; etc. Are you perhaps channeling "Custer"?
You sound almost like a Neocon, Zim; not a good look among thoughtful people. How, specifically, does your thinking differ from that of a Neocon??
(2) Are you saying we weren't "free" before WW2? Can you defend that factually false implication? Most of us here think we were MOST free before the WW2 military expansion. How do you define "free"? Or are you unable to define "free"?
---
[a] Hmmm. "Straw man argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light."
| 
