joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Why is anyone even discussing what Ann Coulter said? She is not credible, nor insightful and least of all, she is human. If someone, say, Anderson Cooper of CNN's AC 360, were to ask the question, I'd take it a bit more seriously.
Mr. Obama should have left Afghanistan. But, he strikes me as a pretty smart and educated fellow. So, I am guessing, there was alot more going on then the public knew on Afghanistan. As you might recall, the Republicans were playing a child's game towards the Presidents (when are they NOT, behaving like children?), of 'I Dare You". Senator John McCain (and others) as often mention that if the US announces a withdrawal date. That the Taliban just has to wait out the forces in that country. There are ALOT of Republicans just as at fault, as Mr. Obama is, for the war contuining on. Likewise, those Republican senators and representatives, were elected by Republican voters. So the Republican voters, are JUST AS AT FAULT, for our troops still being in Afgahistan. Except, true to Republican philosophy, not a single one of them will EVER take responsiblity for their actions or words.
Someone asked the question, of how long could the US behave as a protectorite towards other parts of the world. That is fairly easy to answer.
First, former President Esinhower explain the concept to the American people in his Farewell Speech. I think a guy, like Mr. Esinhower, a five star general during the European Theater of WWII, would have at least 'some' understanding of how 'guns and butter' works. Each president since, has wrestled with this concept (for better and worst). Former President George W. Bush, embraced the M.I.C., rather then shy away from it. Even while engaging in Afgahnistan, he turned the nation's attention to Iraq. Pouring huge amounts of resources, both those 'on hand' and through 'deficit spending', he helped create many of the problems we are experiencing today (like adding to the federal debt, for example).
Secondly, one only needs to look at the spending budget for Defense. The current budget for 2011, is for $548 Billion. The next nine largest militaries of the world could easily have their budgets paid for with money left over. How many countries can support a dozen carrier fleets? Or a boomer (those are subs) fleet that can utterly wipe out the planet in a nuclear barrage? Or be able to move a battalion of troops anywhere in the world inside of 24 hours? That is what a few hundred billion a year in Defense budget can do for the USA. But the money itself, is not simply spent on carriers, tanks, or chow for our troops. It is spent on developing new technologies and weapons of war. As some economists have stated, the Defense Budget is essentially 'middle class welfare'.
Third, the Defense Budget, will NEVER be reduced. That is music to the defense companies in our country and around the world. Democrats can not reduce this number, without Republicans taunting them, for making the US weaker against our enemies (like those terrorist groups running around with nuclear carrier attack fleets...). Republicans can not reduce this number, since it simply goes against their philosophy. So yes, the budget can only go up, year after year. And the money has to go towards something (besides middle class welfare): like blowing the fucking shit out of someone! From a cynical point of view, the US averages one war every 16 years.
And this isn't even a drop in the bucket of the whole understanding of the OP's original question. I imagine, it will be either in to Mr. Obama's next term, or the next President after that, to 'get out of Afghanistan, irrelevant of what Republicans complain about'.
|
RE: A Nation of Perpetual War? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread