Do you think we left/are leaving Iraq and Afghanistan too soon or not quick enough? Should we be involved in Syria?

I was listening to an interview with John McCain and he thinks we pulled out of Iraq too soon and we're doing the same with Afghanistan basically leaving both countries in a mess.

Would you be willing to commit more money, troops, lives, to bring stability to those countries? Are we exiting too soon? Was it all a wasted effort?

Thoughts?

Personally I think it cuts across party lines and most of us are pretty fucking tired of the cost/lives involved in the middle east. Hell, we're training these people and they're turning their guns on our soldiers.

I guess the argument is we haven't put in ENOUGH effort in these places and that's why we seem to be failing.

Never should have gone in the first place. America's that asshole that shows up at your party uninvited, drinks all your beer, pukes all over your furniture, smashes your stereo, steals your TV and bails like it ain't no thang.

We have no business in the middle east. If they had no oil, they would have no US troops, bottom fucking line. Notice we aren't jumping at the chance to free the Burmese people from their military overseers? You think if Cuba had oil, we wouldn't have bent the Castros over and fucked them right up their asses? How many African dictators run around willy nilly? How many of them did the gov't put in power? Just as many as they needed to to keep the oil flowing through their rich corporate sponsors.

One can make the argument that the gov't gave us all the good, righteous reasons for heading overseas and doing what they did. But when you take into account that the assholes overseeing those countries before the US came in provided relative stability and you look at the condition of those countries post-invasion, all that reasoning starts to fall apart.

If one dictator is bad, then all dictators are bad. They don't allow their people the 'freedom' that we Americans enjoy, so clearly they must be up to no good, yes? Why are we picking and choosing which ones to fight, and why are they all in the middle east?

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
Ohhh, war, I despise
Because it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh
Good God, y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing
But a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Ooooh, war
It's an enemy to all mankind
The point of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die
Aaaaah, war-huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War, huh
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, it's got one friend
That's the undertaker
Ooooh, war, has shattered
Many a young mans dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much to short and precious
To spend fighting wars these days
War can't give life
It can only take it away
Ooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War, whoa, Lord
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me
War, it ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker
Peace, love and understanding
Tell me, is there no place for them today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way
Ooooooh, war, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
You tell me
Say it, say it, say it, say it
War, huh
Good God y'all
What is it good for
Stand up and shout it
Nothing

(09-19-2012, 10:25 PM)username Wrote: Would you be willing to commit more money, troops, lives, to bring stability to those countries? Are we exiting too soon? Was it all a wasted effort?

No more money, no more troops, no more Americans dying for nothing.

I know people don't like it when people like me say these soldiers are dying for nothing but it's how I feel. I don't see anything at all that has changed since we went to war years ago, well..except for the death toll. I don't see anything being accomplished.

If something has been accomplished I'd like to hear what it is from someone other than a politician. Thanks!

Wars are not fought like they were is WWII today every move is scrutinized and out there for everyone to see sometimes before it even happens. I like drones they are cold and heartless.

I feel badly for the ordinary people in the middle east who just want to raise their children and live iin peace ...that are petrified with us pulling out because now they have no one competent to protect them from the whackos fundamentalists....

(09-20-2012, 08:59 AM)pspence Wrote: I feel badly for the ordinary people in the middle east who just want to raise their children and live iin peace ...that are petrified with us pulling out because now they have no one competent to protect them from the whackos fundamentalists....

They have to fight for their own freedom, when its given to them its worthless.

(09-19-2012, 11:57 PM)Sacrifyx Wrote: Never should have gone in the first place. America's that asshole that shows up at your party uninvited, drinks all your beer, pukes all over your furniture, smashes your stereo, steals your TV and bails like it ain't no thang.

We have no business in the middle east. If they had no oil, they would have no US troops, bottom fucking line. Notice we aren't jumping at the chance to free the Burmese people from their military overseers? You think if Cuba had oil, we wouldn't have bent the Castros over and fucked them right up their asses? How many African dictators run around willy nilly? How many of them did the gov't put in power? Just as many as they needed to to keep the oil flowing through their rich corporate sponsors.

One can make the argument that the gov't gave us all the good, righteous reasons for heading overseas and doing what they did. But when you take into account that the assholes overseeing those countries before the US came in provided relative stability and you look at the condition of those countries post-invasion, all that reasoning starts to fall apart.

If one dictator is bad, then all dictators are bad. They don't allow their people the 'freedom' that we Americans enjoy, so clearly they must be up to no good, yes? Why are we picking and choosing which ones to fight, and why are they all in the middle east?

Well said.

I agree with Duchess too. Looking at Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we'll be leaving them as fucked up as they were before.

There's been a story on CNN the past few days about a guy who trained Iraqi officers. He told his dad that he'd been threatened by the guy he was training and was told constantly that he (the U.S.) weren't wanted there. He predicted his own death and sure enough, the Iraqi officer shot him...and was subsequently released. The father doesn't know where the officer is--no justice for him. Here's a link if anyone is interested. Sad story.

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/19...own-death/

I believe war can almost always be averted if two men of good will from the opposing sides will sit down and hammer out the differences. The problem is that sometimes there isn't even one man of good will, much less two. I confess I was a little hawkish about Iraq bacause sadam was bent on mass murder. Now I wonder if the invasion was the best policy. I'm still hawkish on Afghanistan because the Taliban and Al Queda were actively killing people. The country should be stable enough to support itself before we pull out.

It's getting increasingly difficult to automatically support the US. Increasingly the US government and its military exists for the sole benefit of wall street rather than the interests of the US people as a whole. The US is getting involved too much in foreign affairs and we are becoming ourselves too foreign. While striving to the day that the whole world can be under a single government is a lofty and desirable goal, no people should have to forfeit their birthright to achieve this. We are losing our liberty in fits and starts in order to establish a single government a full century before it might be achievable. Too many millions of Americans have died in the name of liberty to give it up in exchange for a little creature comfort or for security. We have the strongest military in the world but it fights more for wall street than for Liberty.

The problem with war is it never determines who is right, it only determines who is left... I think Confucious owns that one.

I think Sac covered it pretty much up there ^, but the funny thing is from another country's viewpoint, is that 20 years ago you would have never heard an American saying that about America.Today, many many are...you guys have changed. It's like since Bill left office the country has been polarised and Obama has been a catalyst for it.

(09-20-2012, 08:07 PM)crash Wrote: It's like since Bill left office the country has been polarised and Obama has been a catalyst for it.

I think it was the perfect storm. Obama may have contributed to the polarization (with his executive orders and such) but when he came in to office some Republicans immediately voiced the desire to see him as a one term President. The economy was tanking, the rise of the Tea Party and then Occupy Wall Street.

You're right. I don't think I've ever felt that our country was this polarized. I just don't know for certain that a different President will change that. With a Republican controlled House and Democrat controlled Senate...nothing is getting done. Very few people are reaching across the aisle at this point.

Oddly enough, I doubt if Mitt were to get elected you'd get the same sort of vicious "make him a one term President" attacks from the Democrats. Is it just that liberals are by nature softies or is it because he's the typical white guy? Or maybe it's because he wouldn't be walking in under circumstances like Obama inherited? *shrugs* I don't know but I don't think it would be the same for him.

Wars outside of our own borders used to be primarily about acquisition. Now, it seems most of them are about changing a portion of another country's culture, sometimes under the claim of "humanitarianism", but often for strategic political and/or economic benefit (imo). I don't know if it's possible to affect cultural change without formally ruling the territory, if even then.

It's very appealing to imagine the US staying out of other countries' internal conflicts; ideal. But, should we really not intervene when ethnic cleansing is underway? If one of our allies is under threat or attacked, should we stay put and wish them the best? If terrorists supported by and head-quartered in other countries come to the US and launch attacks (like 9/11), should we attempt to find their leaders and stop the aggressors or isolate ourselves more and continue to up security in expectation that they'll try again?

I don't have the answers, but these are the questions that I struggle with. Does the US have a solid identity and role in regards to foreign policy in times of conflict, or should it remain situational (as it has been for the last few decades, imo)? Essentially, I'm torn about whether international intervention/war is sometimes a necessary evil, or if we should instead avoid it altogether unless it's in defense of American land/people on our ground/air/water (as Ron Paul would have it, according to my understanding of his plans).

Strength is the only thing these people know. Until we get over all the PC bullshit and fiddle faddle these wars will continue to drag on. War is hell, not a puppet show for polititians and not for the weak of heart. It should be the very last resort. You do not go in calling it a "military intervention" or some pussy name. People die its a war. Resolve and acceptance is not for the jelly spined polititians that try to change it after they sign a piece of paper. Call it what it is and with a full tank of gas go..........

Like Sac said, I think we only get involved when it's beneficial to our interests or else we'd be all over Sudan. I'm not saying that's wrong necessarily but let's not pretend our involvement is entirely humanitarian. Our involvement is self serving.

I'm not sure self-serving is the proper term here...I know all that extra oil hasn't benefited me in the slightest.

(09-21-2012, 12:24 AM)Sacrifyx Wrote: I'm not sure self-serving is the proper term here...I know all that extra oil hasn't benefited me in the slightest.

You mean our presence in the Middle East hasn't had an effect on you? You call it extra oil, when in reality it's ensuring that oil flows freely from the region.

I think if that were to end, our means of getting oil here would be way more difficult and expensive, thereby changing our way of life.

Think again when you say it hasn't benefited you in the slightest.

We should have stopped getting our oil from there YEARS ago. America needs to be energy independent.

(09-21-2012, 09:25 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(09-21-2012, 12:24 AM)Sacrifyx Wrote: I'm not sure self-serving is the proper term here...I know all that extra oil hasn't benefited me in the slightest.

You mean our presence in the Middle East hasn't had an effect on you? You call it extra oil, when in reality it's ensuring that oil flows freely from the region.

I think if that were to end, our means of getting oil here would be way more difficult and expensive, thereby changing our way of life.

Think again when you say it hasn't benefited you in the slightest.

I agree but look at the cost of gas!

I think it was Dick who once pointed out that in the old days, if you went to war, the victor obtained the spoils of war. I think we should own at least a third of the damn oilfields over there for our efforts. Sheesh.

(09-21-2012, 11:23 AM)username Wrote:

(09-21-2012, 09:25 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(09-21-2012, 12:24 AM)Sacrifyx Wrote: I'm not sure self-serving is the proper term here...I know all that extra oil hasn't benefited me in the slightest.

You mean our presence in the Middle East hasn't had an effect on you? You call it extra oil, when in reality it's ensuring that oil flows freely from the region.

I think if that were to end, our means of getting oil here would be way more difficult and expensive, thereby changing our way of life.

Think again when you say it hasn't benefited you in the slightest.

I agree but look at the cost of gas!

I think it was Dick who once pointed out that in the old days, if you went to war, the victor obtained the spoils of war. I think we should own at least a third of the damn oilfields over there for our efforts. Sheesh.

Agreed, somewhat. Oil, to me anyway, is good for one thing: Getting my car (and me) from A to B. More oil = lower cost, yes? So what did I miss? Since we've been fighting over there, the cost has only gone up. We've given that oil all the freedom and democracy we possibly could, and yet it still costs me 15 bucks a day to drive to work and back. And it's not like America doesn't have its own stash anyway or the capacity to build on that stash. Americans are fighting to keep the rich people rich, make certain rich people even richer all while the rest of us get continually shit on for no good reason. Say, what do you suppose will happen when we've stolen...I mean bought up...all the available oil out there? What happens when no one else has any, but they see America sitting on a nice fat stash of it? What do you think happens then?