More Boots on the Ground in Afghanistan

[Winehole23]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/10/13/GR2009101300098.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101203142.html?hpid=topnews#

[boutons_deux]

And so the quagmire continues and deepens.

The troops will come out of Iraq, or from the US unemployed who use the Army as employer of last resort.

As Iraq troop levels are reduced, Iraq will blow up.

It's all a total, irredeemable waste of lives and money, shit-canning both shit-can countries.

[hope4dopes]

Oh my good where's code pink?

[spursncowboys]

And so the quagmire continues and deepens.

The troops will come out of Iraq, or from the US unemployed who use the Army as employer of last resort.

As Iraq troop levels are reduced, Iraq will blow up.

It's all a total, irredeemable waste of lives and money, shit-canning both shit-can countries. You didn't read the article. Obama never said combat troops yet. The quagmire that Bush and pro-surge people won for the Dem's who declared the OIF lost.

[Winehole23]

You didn't read the article. Obama never said combat troops yet. The quagmire that Bush and pro-surge people won for the Dem's who declared the OIF lost.If we've already won in Iraq, why don't we withdraw? Instead, we're sending more troops and contractors there.

[spursncowboys]

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.
We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.
We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding, the confidence, and the courage which flow from conviction.
The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world.
So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth.
-FDR

[spursncowboys]

If we've already won in Iraq, why don't we withdraw? Instead, we're sending more troops and contractors there.
Maybe I misread that. I thought the support troops were heading to Afghan?
IMO we are there still because the same reason we are still in Germany and Japan. Gen in Iraq says we can redeploy faster than expected.

[Winehole23]

IMO we are there still because the same reason we are still in Germany and Japan. Why are we in Germany and Japan?

[Winehole23]

If you had said: for the same reason as South Korea that would make some sense. How are Germany and Japan analogous to Afghanistan?

[spursncowboys]

If you had said: for the same reason as South Korea that would make some sense. How are Germany and Japan analogous to Afghanistan?
S Korea is a better example. The Ger posts being a fuel point and midway point are some strategic reasons. They still have combat troops but not alot and I think they are in the deploying cycles. Japan is good stragetically, for the navy and airforce. For all the Asia threats; To keep waterways open and available.
Did Obama say all soldiers would be out of Iraq? This type of build up might not happen. IMO we could have soldiers there because we are trying to slowly transition in case the militia, terrorists, or Iran try and take over.

[Winehole23]

Indirectly, SnC, you raise a point that is little discussed here. Are there traditional geostrategic reasons for the prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan apart from the threat of terrorism?

Containment/encirclement of Iran would one reason; influencing overland energy flows is another; countering Chinese/Russian influence in central Asia is MK Bhadrakumar's favored hypothesis.

All these ideas are more or less plausible but none of them sell quite as well as terrorism.

In your opinion, SnC, is it possible that our stated reasons for being there might be opportunistic, that is, a smoke screen for broader, long term objectives?

[RandomGuy]

You didn't read the article. Obama never said combat troops yet. The quagmire that Bush and pro-surge people won for the Dem's who declared the OIF lost.

It wasn't the surge that "won" anything. It was the rapid shift in strategy that accompanied the surge. A shift caused by a very secret strategy study on the part of the Bush administration after they realized they were losing.

A shift that would not have been necessary, had the administration been able to find it's collective ass with both hands, and done things right from the start, instead of the Republican administration sacrificing 3000 servicemembers on the altar of their own stupidity.

[RandomGuy]

If you had said: for the same reason as South Korea that would make some sense. How are Germany and Japan analogous to Afghanistan?

They aren't.

Both of those nations had functioning governments and workforces that were skilled and fairly educated, after the war was over.

Afghanistan...doesn't.

We will be in Afghanistan when my 6 year old is eligible for the draft. Don't let anyone lie to you about that.

It will take us the better part of a generation, if not two, to bring a country with a development level akin to the middle ages into the 21st century.

Once we have done so, it will be interesting to see how they run things.

[Winehole23]

It will take us the better part of a generation, if not two, to bring a country with a development level akin to the middle ages into the 21st century.

Once we have done so, it will be interesting to see how they run things.As you well know, I am considerably less sanguine about the wisdom of sacrificing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars more, on the mere presumption that we will successfully convert a tribal and semi-feudal society that is a nation only in the bare political sense, into a pro-western, liberal-democratic regime that enjoys domestic legitimacy.

You could be right, RG. But if you are wrong, we will have sacrificed the wealth and the blood of "a generation or two" on the altar of misplaced hope.

[DarrinS]

We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?

[LnGrrrR]

We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?

DarrinS, a few questions:

1) Do you think the US military can effectively deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons?

2) Do you think the best method is by staging a long "nation building" ground campaign?

3) Do you think this is the best use of resources?

4) Do you think it is a worthy expenditure of resources?

[nkdlunch]

We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?

link?

[Winehole23]

We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?This is a phony antithesis. Pulling up stakes completely isn't the only alternative to generational counterinsurgency. It also isn't going to happen. It's a scarecrow, D, and you know it. Obama isn't even considering it.

But, supposing it were a real possibility: IMO There's a good case to be made that letting the Taliban reinvest Afghanistan would relieve the pressure in Pakistan, just as our invasion exacerbated it.

Pressuring Pakistan to democratize also appears to have been a big mistake; Zardari is even more despised than Mussharraf and notably weaker.

On the whole, our presence in the region is not stabilizing. Quite the contrary. Things have gotten much worse and much more dangerous since we got there.

[Winehole23]

Thus, not only did the April strategy utterly fail, but the Taliban-led insurgency's trend line is steadily climbing upward, an ascent that began in 2007 and would not be possible without widespread and increasing popular support. Rather than popular support for the Taliban being based on intimidation and money, what we are seeing in Afghanistan is popular opinion catching up with Islamist determination. Until roughly late 2006, the war against the U.S.-NATO coalition was largely fought by the Taliban, other Islamists groups like that led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and al Qaeda. Since then, however, the Islamists have been joined by Afghans who simply do not want Muslim bAfghanistan occupied by all sorts of infidels from all sorts of Christian and polytheist countries. In short, an Islamist insurgency has evolved into an Islamist-nationalist freedom struggle not unlike that which beat the Red Army. The best way to see the growth of the Afghan enemy facing the United States and NATO is to track the proliferating number of insurgent attacks in the heretofore quiet and supposedly "friendly" arc of provinces from Herat in the west clockwise to Badakhshan in the far northeast.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/12/go_big_or_go_home

[DarrinS]

DarrinS, a few questions:

1) Do you think the US military can effectively deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons?

2) Do you think the best method is by staging a long "nation building" ground campaign?

3) Do you think this is the best use of resources?

4) Do you think it is a worthy expenditure of resources?


Those are all good questions. The answer to the first is: I don't know. I keep using fire ant killer in my yard and those little bastards just reappear in a different location a week or so later. I think the US has to maintain some kind of presence in the region.

To the second question -- I don't know how you build something that was never there in the first place. All I know is that we need to leave that place in a condition that's not an easy sanctuary for growing little terrorists. (easier said than done)

Only history will answer Q3 and Q4.

[Winehole23]

All I know is that we need to leave that place in a condition that's not an easy sanctuary for growing little terrorists. This meme is so lamebrained. The whole world is a potential sanctuary for terrorists. The more pressure we apply, the more resistance we create. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Al Qaeda's best recruiters.

[MannyIsGod]

If people are still worried about Afghanistan being a pre 9/11 base for an organization like Al Qaeda I'm amazed. You think American government would let that happen with or without a presence on the ground? I find that laughable.

[spursncowboys]

Indirectly, SnC, you raise a point that is little discussed here. Are there traditional geostrategic reasons for the prolonged US military presence in Afghanistan apart from the threat of terrorism?

Containment/encirclement of Iran would one reason; influencing overland energy flows is another; countering Chinese/Russian influence in central Asia is MK Bhadrakumar's favored hypothesis.

All these ideas are more or less plausible but none of them sell quite as well as terrorism.

In your opinion, SnC, is it possible that our stated reasons for being there might be opportunistic, that is, a smoke screen for broader, long term objectives?
It is a great way of getting into the heart of Russia's sphere of influence. I know I use stratfor alot but Next 100 Years author brings this up. HE talks about the main goal for Muslim country is to make sure they do not become united. He believes keeping Russia from building up their sphere (Caucasian mtns, and Poland) are going to be the big areas for America's next real foreign policy issues in the next 30 yrs. I believe IMO we went into Afghanistan for the real reason of fighting the terrorists and taliban. HOwever We will probably stay forever because of the strategic aspect.

[spursncowboys]

This meme is so lamebrained. The whole world is a potential sanctuary for terrorists. The more pressure we apply, the more resistance we create. Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Al Qaeda's best recruiters.
I disagree. I think leaving Mogadishu was a far greater tool for the terrorists than the two wars. Also not responding to any of the Al Qieda attacks as well as being wishy washy with Saddam.

[Winehole23]

We can respond to terror attacks without invading and occupying other countries. It isn't proven to work, creates new enemies and sets a bad example for other countries.

[Winehole23]

If the answer is no then it is time to a return to the successful strategy that we had used when we first invaded Afghanistan right after the 9/11 attack but that has been forgotten or ignored in the eight years since then. That strategy was to send in CIA operatives with bags of money to buy off the warlords rather than troops with weapons. John Lehman, the former Secretary of the Navy, noted in an editorial in The Washington Post in 2006 that, "What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dagobert-l-brito/for-a-solution-in-afghani_b_319182.html

[ChumpDumper]

I disagree. I think leaving Mogadishu was a far greater tool for the terrorists than the two wars. Also not responding to any of the Al Qieda attacks as well as being wishy washy with Saddam.Don't forget cutting and running from Beirut.

[clambake]

Don't forget cutting and running from Beirut.

...and hooray for granada!

ronnie knew when to bolt.

[spursncowboys]

...and hooray for granada!

ronnie knew when to bolt. I can't forget the big one - Iran. The beginning of fundamentalists running the muslim country. Stopping the funding of S. Vietnam, hey only a few million died from that right. Oh well

[spursncowboys]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dagobert-l-brito/for-a-solution-in-afghani_b_319182.html


That is one of Kerry's points for what went wrong. All the Dems ran with it. I think that is a great idea. Not 100% but it could work. A reason why it wouldn't work is the Northern Alliance would get decimated if they were expected to hold territory in the east near Pakistan.

[clambake]

yes, it was a sad day when the butcher (shah) was booted.

....i can ask a half dozen guys in here that will swear we won in vietnam.

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree. I think leaving Mogadishu was a far greater tool for the terrorists than the two wars. Also not responding to any of the Al Qieda attacks as well as being wishy washy with Saddam.


.....

What?

You continuously post things that simply baffle me.

[Winehole23]

It was a tit for tat reply to Chumpy, I think. SnC wants to emphasize that Carter, Clinton and the 92nd Congress were even worse *appeasers* than Reagan. I think it hurts him to think that St. Ronnie was an *cut and run appeaser* too.

[ChumpDumper]

Ronnie cut and run from Beirut, then sold missiles to fundamentalist Iran.

What an appeaser!

[MannyIsGod]

He said it before chump made his comment. Its just such an example of doing anything possible to make the information fit the paradigm you've envisioned. We're there as liberators therefor how could these 2 actions do more harm than slick willy running tail tucked between his legs? I simply couldn't fathom it!

[NoOptionB]

We should just leave the region. Who cares if Pakistan is nuclear and close to being a failed state with Al Qaeda and Taliban running amok?

ehhhh that's the good thing about being surrounded by oceans. Chances are they will just blow each other up.

China and Russia want to keep dicking around with the shitstains, godspeed brahs.

[nuclearfm]

For once I wish the anti-war left would not shut up on this....

[spursncowboys]

It was a tit for tat reply to Chumpy, I think. SnC wants to emphasize that Carter, Clinton and the 92nd Congress were even worse *appeasers* than Reagan. I think it hurts him to think that St. Ronnie was an *cut and run appeaser* too. We had the Soviets with Reagan. It was a different world. I believe us letting the muslim radicals take over Iran like that and hold our citizens hostage created more terrorists than going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

[MannyIsGod]

We had the Soviets with Reagan. It was a different world. I believe us letting the muslim radicals take over Iran like that and hold our citizens hostage created more terrorists than going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan.

:lol

What do you base this belief off of?

[spursncowboys]

:lol

What do you base this belief off of? You are very amused with yourself.
I base my beliefs on my background, education, cultural surroundings and religion.

[spursncowboys]

:lol

What do you base this belief off of? You are very amused with yourself.
I base my beliefs on my family background, education, cultural surroundings and religion.

[MannyIsGod]

You are very amused with yourself.
I base my beliefs on my background, education, cultural surroundings and religion.

I'm actually very amused with you.

Would you care to be more specific? I'd especially like to know how your religious background plays into the belief that the Iranian revolution is the cause of modern day terrorism.

[spursncowboys]

father of the iranian revolution
jun. 20, 2007
michael d. Evans , the jerusalem post
...
The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist jimmy carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the muslim world, the shah of iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah khomeini.
carter viewed khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. carter's ambassador to the un, andrew young, said "khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." carter's iranian ambassador, william sullivan, said, "khomeini is a gandhi-like figure." carter adviser james bill proclaimed in a newsweek interview on february 12, 1979 that khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."
the shah was terrified of carter. He told his personal confidant, "who knows what sort of calamity he [carter] may unleash on the world?"
jpost blogcentral: A personal note from carter (http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=63&blog_post_id=862) let's look at the results of carter's misguided liberal policies: The islamic revolution in iran; the soviet invasion of afghanistan (carter's response was to boycott the 1980 moscow olympics); the birth of osama bin laden's terrorist organization; the iran-iraq war, which cost the lives of millions dead and wounded; and yes, the present war on terrorism and the wars in afghanistan and iraq.
when carter entered the political fray in 1976, america was still riding the liberal wave of anti-vietnam war emotion. carter asked for an in-depth report on iran even before he assumed the reins of government and was persuaded that the shah was not fit to rule iran. 1976 was a banner year for pacifism: Carter was elected president, bill clinton became attorney-general of arkansas, and albert gore won a place in the tennessee house of representatives.
In his anti-war pacifism, carter never got it that khomeini, a cleric exiled to najaf in iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing iran for revolution. Proclaiming "the west killed god and wants us to bury him," khomeini's weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi ("the plague of western culture").
Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. khomeini could never have succeeded without carter. The islamic revolution would have been stillborn.
gen. Robert huyser, carter's military liaison to iran, once told me in tears: "the president could have publicly condemned khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [american embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. 'one cannot do that to a holy man,' he said."
iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad has donned the mantle of ayatollah khomeini, taken up bin laden's call, and is fostering an islamic apocalyptic revolution in iraq with the intent of taking over the middle east and the world.
Jimmy carter became the poster boy for the ideological revolution of the 1960s in the west, hell bent on killing the soul of america. The bottom line: carter believed then and still does now is that evil really does not exist; people are basically good; america should embrace the perpetrators and castigate the victims.
in the '60s it was mass rebellion after the assassinations of robert kennedy and martin luther king. When humanity confronts eternity, the response is always rebellion or repentance. The same ideologues who fought to destroy the soul of america with the "god is dead" movement in the 1960s are now running the arts, the universities, the media, the state department, congress, and senate, determined more then ever to kill the soul of america while the east attempts to kill the body. Carter's world view defines the core ideology of the democratic party.
What is going on in iraq is no mystery to those of us who have had our fingers on the pulse of both iran and iraq for decades. The iran-iraq war was a war of ideologies. Saddam hussein saw himself as an arab leader who would defeat the non-arab persians. Khomeini saw it as an opportunity to export his islamic revolution across the borders to the shi'ites in iraq and then beyond to the arab countries.
Throughout the war both leaders did everything possible to incite the inhabitants of each country to rebel - precisely what iran is doing in iraq today. Khomeini encouraged the shi'ites across the border to remove saddam from power and establish an islamic republic like in iran.
carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy - and nothing but diplomacy - now permeates the democratic party. Unfortunately, carter is wrong.
There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated.
khomeini had the help of the plo in iran. They supplied weapons and terrorists to murder iranians and incite mobs in the streets. No wonder yasser arafat was hailed as a friend of khomeini after he seized control of iran and was given the israeli embassy in teheran with the plo flag flying overhead.
the carter administration scrambled to assure the new regime that the united states would maintain diplomatic ties with iran. But on april 1, 1979 the greatest april fools' joke of all time was played, as khomeini proclaimed it the first day of the government of god.
in february 1979 khomeini had boarded an air france flight to return to teheran with the blessing of jimmy carter. The moment he arrived, he proclaimed: "i will kick his teeth in" - referring to then prime minister shapour bakhtiar, who was left in power with a us pledge of support. He was assassinated in paris by iranian agents in 1991.
i sat in the home of gen. Huyser, who told me the shah feared he would lose the country if he implemented carter's polices. Carter had no desire to see the shah remain in power. he really believed that a cleric - whose islamist fanaticism he did not understand in the least - would be better for human rights and iran.
He could have changed history by condemning khomeini and getting the support of our allies to keep him out of iran.
the writer is a new york times best-selling author. His newest book is the final move beyond iraq. www.beyondiraq.com (http://www.beyondiraq.com)

[MannyIsGod]

You say that the Iran Revolution did more to make terrorists than the the 2 current wars and the way you justify this statement is by providing an op ed piece which supports denying human rights and press censorship while seeking to put all the blame on Carter.

Amazing.

I find it absolutely laughable you think Jimmy Carter was the cause of the revolution in Iran but that really does not even address your first statement.

[ChumpDumper]

So his background and education, culture and religion is basically googling shit after shooting off his mouth.

:lol

[spursncowboys]

So his background and education, culture and religion is basically googling shit after shooting off his mouth.

:lol :lol 2:40 in the morning. Get a job loser.

[SouthernFried]

I think Afghanistan is gonna be a very dangerous place to be for awhile...also a pretty strategic place. For many of the reasons already stated.

I'm also not sure running Al Queda out of Afghanistan (whether it's actually possible or not) is such a great idea either. I think the "fight them there rather than over here" probably has more merit in Afghanistan than Iraq. And in that vein, you want to keep them there...and try to keep them out of places like Pakistan. A serious balancing act.

Islamic terrorism ain't going away anytime soon, it's going to be a very long haul here. But, in a post 9-11 world, fighting and learning about them over there seems to be the wisest course of action...and it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

Not a great scenario that I think anyone likes. But, it is what it is.

[spurster]

There's a good editorial from Friedman today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html

Not Good Enough

By Thomas L. Friedman
Published: October 13, 2009


...

Talking to Afghanistan experts in Kabul, Washington and Berlin, a picture is emerging: The Karzai government has a lot in common with a Mafia family. Where a "normal" government raises revenues from the people - in the form of taxes - and then disperses them to its local and regional institutions in the form of budgetary allocations or patronage, this Afghan government operates in the reverse. The money flows upward from the countryside in the form of payments for offices purchased or "gifts" from cronies.

What flows from Kabul, the experts say, is permission for unfettered extraction, protection in case of prosecution and punishment in case the official opposes the system or gets out of line. In "Karzai World," it appears, slots are either sold (to people who buy them in order to make a profit) or granted to cronies, or are given away to buy off rivals.

...

[boutons_deux]

Rampant corruption in Afghanistan is key issue: top general

The top commanding officer in Afghanistan has revealed a belief that “rampant government corruption” has given the Taliban and al-Qaeda an edge in the war

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/rampant-corruption-in-afghanistan-is-key-issue-top-general/

I read that the Pakistan military was saying only $500M of the $5B in US military aid had actually reached the military. the other $4.5B? hmmm

The US is wasting its people and its treasure in these shithole, savage, backward countries.

[LnGrrrR]

Those are all good questions. The answer to the first is: I don't know. I keep using fire ant killer in my yard and those little bastards just reappear in a different location a week or so later. I think the US has to maintain some kind of presence in the region.

To the second question -- I don't know how you build something that was never there in the first place. All I know is that we need to leave that place in a condition that's not an easy sanctuary for growing little terrorists. (easier said than done)

Only history will answer Q3 and Q4.

Agreed with you on the first two, which is why I think people can reasonably argue that we should leave the place, as we have no set idea on whether the resources will be worth it in the long run.

Additionally, there's a chance that all these fire ants will stop bothering us or lessen their attacks if we remove ourselves from the equation, instead turning on each other (Not guaranteed, to be sure, but a chance.)

Finally, if we took even half of the money that was being spent overseas, and instead invested it in thinktanks and better forms of security, we might be able to protect ourselves better. Airports, for instance, still are designed horribly in regards to safety measures.

[clambake]

Agreed with you on the first two, which is why I think people can reasonably argue that we should leave the place, as we have no set idea on whether the resources will be worth it in the long run.

Additionally, there's a chance that all these fire ants will stop bothering us or lessen their attacks if we remove ourselves from the equation, instead turning on each other (Not guaranteed, to be sure, but a chance.)

Finally, if we took even half of the money that was being spent overseas, and instead invested it in thinktanks and better forms of security, we might be able to protect ourselves better. Airports, for instance, still are designed horribly in regards to safety measures.

no offense, but you don't know shit about empire building.:p:

[LnGrrrR]

Also, SpursNCowboys, I find it highly incredulous that Al Qaeda, the Soviet invasion and the Iran/Iraq war can all be traced back to the actions of one person. Given that the author says that the idea of 'diplomacy and only diplomacy' is firmly entrenched in the Democratic party now, when there are plenty of warmongers on the Left side of the aisle, I don't see how I can take the rest of that article seriously.

[SouthernFried]

Additionally, there's a chance that all these fire ants will stop bothering us or lessen their attacks if we remove ourselves from the equation, instead turning on each other (Not guaranteed, to be sure, but a chance.)

Finally, if we took even half of the money that was being spent overseas, and instead invested it in thinktanks and better forms of security, we might be able to protect ourselves better. Airports, for instance, still are designed horribly in regards to safety measures.

I don't believe they will stop "bothering us"...after all, we weren't in Afghanistan, or Iraq when 9-11 happened. We do support Israel, I think that's enough to make sure were going to be continuously "bothered."

Pulling out and putting the money more into protecting our shores better, might be an option that has merit. Personally, I think "taking it to them," rather than acting defensively when they "take it to us," is a better option. But, depending on the actions taken, both arguments could be supported.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't believe they will stop "bothering us"...after all, we weren't in Afghanistan, or Iraq when 9-11 happened. We do support Israel, I think that's enough to make sure were going to be continuously "bothered."

Yes, but look at who was involved in 9/11.

15 were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#List_ of_the_hijackers

None of them were Iraqi or Afghanistan, with the majority coming from Saudi Arabia, where we have had bases for awhile. We also have a base in UAE.


Pulling out and putting the money more into protecting our shores better, might be an option that has merit. Personally, I think "taking it to them," rather than acting defensively when they "take it to us," is a better option. But, depending on the actions taken, both arguments could be supported.

A few problems with taking it to them:

1) It could possibly give the terrorists propaganda to convince sympathizers to join their side

2) It uses up valuable American resources

3) America is incapable of taking on all of "them" at once, and so even if we take on 99 of 100 countries, the 100th could still harbor potential terrorists

4) Even a successful government will not ensure terrorists don't live there (ie. Unabomber)

[spursncowboys]

Agreed with you on the first two, which is why I think people can reasonably argue that we should leave the place, as we have no set idea on whether the resources will be worth it in the long run.

Additionally, there's a chance that all these fire ants will stop bothering us or lessen their attacks if we remove ourselves from the equation, instead turning on each other (Not guaranteed, to be sure, but a chance.) If you are talking isolationists, it has never worked in all the times we have tried it.
We have a larger Navy than all the other Navy's in the world combined. In line with this countries great culture, we keep it open for every country to trade, for free. What other country, who would fill that vaccuum if we left, would do that and maintain free trade routes?

Finally, if we took even half of the money that was being spent overseas, and instead invested it in thinktanks and better forms of security, we might be able to protect ourselves better. Airports, for instance, still are designed horribly in regards to safety measures. Great point on having better forms of security. We disagree on the best way of creating better security. I don't believe giving a grant or hiring people in a think tank to come up with ideas of how to make security. I believe someone coming up with an idea through the free market is the way. People with a motive for making a profit will produce something better IMO. I don't believe that the money should be taken out of our defense.

[MannyIsGod]

This is not the first time you've asserted the US Navy ensures safety for the world's oceans. Its such a complete crock of shit that I truly wish you would stop repeating. I'm fairly certain almost everyone here who reads it knows how outlandish of a claim it is.

[LnGrrrR]

If you are talking isolationists, it has never worked in all the times we have tried it.

America was pretty isolationist before WWII, only really getting involved in two international wars before that (WWI and the 1812 War). That seemingly 'worked'.


We have a larger Navy than all the other Navy's in the world combined. In line with this countries great culture, we keep it open for every country to trade, for free. What other country, who would fill that vaccuum if we left, would do that and maintain free trade routes?

That's kinda my point. Why should other nations pay to defend their own water when we'll do it for them? Conservatives have no problem understanding this "free rider" issue when it comes to healthcare or welfare; why is it so difficult when projected on an international page?


Great point on having better forms of security. We disagree on the best way of creating better security. I don't believe giving a grant or hiring people in a think tank to come up with ideas of how to make security. I believe someone coming up with an idea through the free market is the way. People with a motive for making a profit will produce something better IMO. I don't believe that the money should be taken out of our defense.

I would like to see a program that pitted free market contractors in a competition for grants, much like DARPA does, with results made to the public to best eliminate graft/corruption.

After all, our defense already funds all sorts of wild/crazy projects... like the laser beam inside a plane to shoot down missiles.

[spursncowboys]

America was pretty isolationist before WWII, only really getting involved in two international wars before that (WWI and the 1812 War). That seemingly 'worked'. WW2 was very close to being the end for capitalism or atleast for free markets in Europe. Also those were different times. Before the spread of communism and fascism. Before battleships and submarines. If we were isolationists what would the world look like? What would we look like without international trade? What inventions would never be because of war and the idea of war?




That's kinda my point. Why should other nations pay to defend their own water when we'll do it for them? Conservatives have no problem understanding this "free rider" issue when it comes to healthcare or welfare; why is it so difficult when projected on an international page? I would be all for welfare if it was a good investment. Same with healthcare. Welfare has kept the same group in healthcare. It has not "helped" them, just made them more dependant on the govt. I believe keeping the trading free for companies is a good investment for america. A french economist once said countries that don't trade goods will trade armies. Like paying for Kim jong ill to stay in power year after year is a bad investment. That is not a free lunch I think benefits us.




I would like to see a program that pitted free market contractors in a competition for grants, much like DARPA does, with results made to the public to best eliminate graft/corruption.

After all, our defense already funds all sorts of wild/crazy projects... like the laser beam inside a plane to shoot down missiles. That is a great idea. Grants IMO have better results than bidding for contracts.