More Boots on the Ground in Afghanistan

[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 about empire building.

[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/Organiz..._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 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 compe ion 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 compe ion 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.