should the troops be brought home

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JngI1_8beoA

There's a lot of valuable stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stuff that certain people need the rights to. Besides, the idea of "pulling the troops out" really just means, "replace the troops with even more expensive state department people and civilian contractors."

I think that is the fastest I've ever seen the Hitler card played. No Mussolini foreplay or anything.

Otto Maddox wrote: I think that is the fastest I've ever seen the Hitler card played. No Mussolini foreplay or anything.

The original Adolf-reference was made with a historical link to the pitfalls of isolationist policies.

The Hitler card is traditionall used by those whose argument has run out of steam but they are desperate to "win" anyway.

One is not like the other............

YMMV

In reply to Otto Maddox:

i threw it down on page one once i think just to get it out of the way, as the arguments were headed there anyways....

Bring them home. We don't have to be isolationists, but we do need to stop being the world police. If we want to help rebuild a third world country, start with Detroit.

Bring them home. All of them. Including the ones that are STILL in Japan, Germany, and all other corners of the world.

Our attempts to "spread democracy," particularly in that region, are pointless, as (recently made obvious by the situation in Somalia,) are our attempts to buy the world's love with foreign aid. These people's berkeleyed up way of living is going to remain the same as they are unwilling to make changes within their own culture.

And while the monetary cost is staggering, I die inside a little every time I hear one of our soldiers has been killed. As a good friend who's brother died in Vietnam once said, making me tuck my tail between my legs and hang my head in shame:

"It's easy to be all 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out' when it's not your brother, or son, or niece or nephew doing the killing and risking their lives."

It's true. I've seen the "before and after" in one of my best buddy's kids, who left a confused and angry kid, and came back a confused and angry kid with really serious issues having seen so much death and violence.

To quote War Games:

"The only way to win is not to play"

BTW - I don't think it is possible to flounder a clearly political thread. You flounder a non-political thread by bringing politics into it. (board terminology violation noted)

As much as it would be good to bring all of the troops home (of which, I am one) that simple fact is that it won't happen. We are so entrenched in Iraq on our mega-FOBs that we will be there for decades to come -- no matter what the commander-in-chief has to say about it.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned it would be much easier to bring all of those folks home as we are not as well established over there because it just hasn't ever really been as stable.

I've had close friends killed and wounded in Afghanistan and I have personally loaded some of my own men onto medevac helicopters, turned around, wiped their blood off of my face and hands and loaded another. Bring them (us) all home -- it's time. We aren't really accomplishing anything in Iraq right now other than holding the Iraqi Army's hand (and they will never let go of it until we force them to by leaving). And as far as I'm concerned we've accomplished the mission in Afghanistan by killing UBL and essentially dismantling the majority of his organization.

No matter how many weeks of bombing we let loose with over there, the bad guys will hide in the caves. They have a completely different mentality than we do, they aren't just going to start turning people in because they see some dead neighbors. Those people have been witnessing death and destruction essentially since the beginning of their existence and they are immune to it. It's time to pack up and come home.

DustoffDave wrote: As much as it would be good to bring all of the troops home (of which, I am one) that simple fact is that it won't happen. We are so entrenched in Iraq on our mega-FOBs that we will be there for decades to come -- no matter what the commander-in-chief has to say about it. As far as Afghanistan is concerned it would be much easier to bring all of those folks home as we are not as well established over there because it just hasn't ever really been as stable. I've had close friends killed and wounded in Afghanistan and I have personally loaded some of my own men onto medevac helicopters, turned around, wiped their blood off of my face and hands and loaded another. Bring them (us) all home -- it's time. We aren't really accomplishing anything in Iraq right now other than holding the Iraqi Army's hand (and they will never let go of it until we force them to by leaving). And as far as I'm concerned we've accomplished the mission in Afghanistan by killing UBL and essentially dismantling the majority of his organization. No matter how many weeks of bombing we let loose with over there, the bad guys will hide in the caves. They have a completely different mentality than we do, they aren't just going to start turning people in because they see some dead neighbors. Those people have been witnessing death and destruction essentially since the beginning of their existence and they are immune to it. It's time to pack up and come home.

Thank you for your service and your perspectives, Dave.

I'm pretty much in line with you; we've accomplished the achievable goals in schnithole-istan but changing the culture is pie-in-the-sky thinking. The Afghani's have known nothing but war and fighting throughout their existence; if they're not killing invaders, they are killing each other - it's who they are and what they do.

At least Iraq has some relevance in that it has valuable resources and is a sworn enemy of Iran. Someone is always going to exploit that country so there is some consolation in maintaining a military presence there. We can justify staying in Iraq far more easily than we can for keeping our bases in Europe.

I take issue with the person that mentioned what happened when America originally practiced isolationist practices.

Do you know how world warfare will be conducted in this age? Financially. Devastating an economy will cripple your opponent into nothingness in short order. On top of that, with the freedom of movement that people have in this day and age, "owning" land that is solely a specific countries is (in my opinion) not nearly as relevant as it was only 50 years ago.

Also, it doesn't take a country to wage war anymore (as we all have noticed). ONE, JUST ONE stolen nuclear device could result in hundreds of thousands of people dieing instantly, with millions more affected. Hell, one bomb if detonated correctly could cause widespread damage over an entire state I bet!

oldsaw wrote: The original Adolf-reference was made with a historical link to the pitfalls of isolationist policies.

I think we're drawing some oversimplifications.

First, there is area between isolationist and intervention in every conflict on Earth. The question was "should we bring the troops home?" In other words, is this conflict one we have any benefit being involved in? There are some folks who don't believe we should be involved in any conflict, but I think most believe there are situations that are appropriate and situations that aren't.

That's why the Hitler thing was funny. Afghanistan is a lot of things, but it's clearly not Nazi Germany. They killed some 3,000 people on 9/11. But we've lost more Americans since that in the wars. And it's reasonable to ask if we're really much better off than we were.

I'm not weighing in with an opinion. Just trying to define the issue. If we're trying to protect American lives, we have to weigh the benefit/loss of either decision. But if we pull out and go home, I don't see a scenario where Afghanistan takes over all of Europe.

slefain wrote: Bring them home. We don't have to be isolationists, but we do need to stop being the world police. If we want to help rebuild a third world country, start with Detroit.

Too late the Detroit area is a Muslim stronghold on American soil

DustoffDave wrote: I've had close friends killed and wounded in Afghanistan and I have personally loaded some of my own men onto medevac helicopters, turned around, wiped their blood off of my face and hands and loaded another. Bring them (us) all home -- it's time.

Wow. Thanks for your service. I was thinking about all this over the weekend. It's kind of a crime that all the economic news so overshadowed the news of the hellicopter downed and the huge loss. I imagine the families of those folks aren't real concerned with their 401k right now. It's really easy to forget what's really going on every day and that those are real people.

If the intent of Afghanistan and Iraq was to get Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, it's Game Over isn't it?

Thank you, Dave, for your first person experience (and for being there). Your conclusions are pretty much my arm-chair-quarterback big-picture ideas as well.

No one ever wins in Afghanistan. Ever. They've been fighting there since before time began. I personally think we should pull out and "reserve the right" to go bomb anyone there we feel like for whatever reason we feel like or drop of some guys to whack whoever we feel like whenever we feel like it (that is, feel threatened) and leave it at that. At the most, pick one base there to keep with a nice air strip, defend the crap out of it, and call it a day. We're not "saving" Afghans. They don't seem to care.

We should also pull out of Europa and S.Korea. Let them both deal with their own problems. As my friend who did 2 or 3 years on the DMZ in Korea said, he thought we were there to keep the RoKers (S.Korea) from invading the North.

I think it's time we took care of our own problems for a change.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DustoffDave wrote: I've had close friends killed and wounded in Afghanistan and I have personally loaded some of my own men onto medevac helicopters, turned around, wiped their blood off of my face and hands and loaded another. Bring them (us) all home -- it's time.

Wow. Thanks for your service. I was thinking about all this over the weekend. It's kind of a crime that all the economic news so overshadowed the news of the hellicopter downed and the huge loss. I imagine the families of those folks aren't real concerned with their 401k right now. It's really easy to forget what's really going on every day and that those are real people.

Indeed, and not just real people, but just kids in a lot of cases. Thanks for your service, Dave. I hope you know that I certainly don't mean any disrespect to our troops. Quite the opposite.

Dr. Hess wrote: Thank you, Dave, for your first person experience (and for being there). Your conclusions are pretty much my arm-chair-quarterback big-picture ideas as well. No one ever wins in Afghanistan. Ever. They've been fighting there since before time began. I personally think we should pull out and "reserve the right" to go bomb anyone there we feel like for whatever reason we feel like or drop of some guys to whack whoever we feel like whenever we feel like it (that is, feel threatened) and leave it at that. At the most, pick one base there to keep with a nice air strip, defend the crap out of it, and call it a day. We're not "saving" Afghans. They don't seem to care. We should also pull out of Europa and S.Korea. Let them both deal with their own problems. As my friend who did 2 or 3 years on the DMZ in Korea said, he thought we were there to keep the RoKers (S.Korea) from invading the North. I think it's time we took care of our own problems for a change.

See also: Haiti. I think it's the best, clearest example of how we can, every 30 years or so, send in troops to "spread democracy" and "affect regime change," not to mention dumping hundreds of millions of dollars, and conditions never get any better because the culture is and will be what it always has been.

914Driver wrote: If the intent of Afghanistan and Iraq was to get Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, it's Game Over isn't it?

Clearly, Iraq never had anything to do with getting Bin Laden. He was never there and they had nothing to do with 9/11. That's the part I was never clear on. Bush campaigned so hard on "nation building" being a waste of American resources. I don't know if we'll ever know exactly what Iraq was all about.

But Afghanistan was as much about the Taliban as Bin Laden, or at least that's what we were told. Our stated goal was to make sure it wasn't a place for terrorists to train and build plans against America in safety. Did we do that? Can it be done? Did we make it worse? I don't pretend to know.

So, should we get out? I can't say in Iraq because I don't think I was ever told why we were there. Afghanistan? Geez, no idea. I'll defer to folks who have been there.

And, yeah, I think it goes without saying that "getting out" doesn't mean 100% out. We'll have a presence over there for an age. "Getting out", it seems to me, is bring the bulk of people and expense home. Looks like we're on a path to do that, right or wrong.

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I think maybe Dwight's successors should have listened more carefully to his parting words. Maybe we wouldn't be putting up with what used to be illegal search and seizure or wiretapping today. Maybe we wouldn't be compromising our next generation's schooling costs while ignoring the vast empire of military we have world-wide.

We should address the military industrial complexes' budget and power-lock on this country and the troop situation will take care of itself.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: It's kinda like when I'm looking at Nazi porn... Damn it.

hahahaha

sorry

NickF40 wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: It's kinda like when I'm looking at Nazi porn... Damn it.

hahahaha sorry

Got a link?

Stop spending money we don't have on wars we can't win.

Step 1: Pull out all troops. From everywhere.
Step 2: Press release to the major world presses, the various embassy's, etc. that reads
"FYI, we are done babysitting you. But just so you know, we still have a E36 M3-ton of nukes. Babysitting you is expensive, the nukes are paid for. Don't piss us off. You fly a plane into our building, we turn your society to dust. Decide to turn into a genocidal berkeley, we'll probably look unkindly on that as well.

Have a nice day, U.S.A."

I was expecting something much more heated then this. It seems that so far most people want to bring the troops home and I am with them.