quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

So, let's turn to Afghanistan as a more appropriate and less emotional example. I am hard-pressed to justify any vital national interest for either the US, Canada, or the UK in standing up the Karzai government, especially since our leaders (Obama) is making decisions about the life and death of our young people for no apparent (to me) righteous reason. And so I am positing that these Pols are too facile, too slick by half when they lay out their reasons for this perpetual war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

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.

quote:

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".

quote:

Secondly, one only needs to look at the spending budget for Defense. The current budget for 2011, is for $548 Billion.

quote:

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'.

quote:

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.

quote:

Vincent, I wonder how many Carrier Battle Groups we could expect to come to our aid in the U.S. from NATO if the need were to arise?

quote:

Our governments in the West need to get back to doing the things they've been neglecting and the things we're paying them to do, start taking care of our own people. Look at Panda, slavemike, Rulemylife, Owner, all going without mental healthcare!

quote:

If you don't interfere in foreign countries' affairs you don't end up in "perpetual wars" do you? We still haven't learned from Vietnam!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

The west only gets involved and we're only in these places in the first instance because its "vital" for our "national interests" (read commercial interests of major corporations). These interests are often not immediately apparent nor are they necessarily directly linked to whatever troublespot it is. The good news is that having recognised this, firms like Blackwater (or whoever they are these days), are now providing mercenary services such that the corporations whose interests are threatened might contract them rather than call on our national armed forces.

And dont worry. If those uppity Canucks come after you, we'll sort 'em out for you.

E 

quote:

ORIGINAL: taleon

I'm not justifying the war in Afghanistan, I know simply too little about it to make any informed judgment about it. But that's not going to stop me from mentioning the interests I do see in setting up a more enlightened regime there. The former rulers, the Taliban, were a bunch of fanatics. No, I'm not Islam-bashing here. I'm talking about a regime that reigned in a way that we would consider medieval, regardless the religion of their choosing.

quote:

We are slowly moving into an era where such regimes can get really annoying, and not only to their local population. As technology advances and spreads, it will become easier and easier to build weapons of mass destruction. Not only thinking in terms of nuclear weapons here. Imagine a world in which it is trivial for any lab to engineer and mass produce a deadly virus. I'd really not want to have a Taliban-like regime to be in charge of such a destructive power. At the very least, we'd now have to take them into consideration as a force to reckon with. A terrifying prospect, given their complete disrespect for human rights.

quote:

So, does the possibility of hostile governments obtaining dangerous weapons justify a military intervention? I don't know...

quote:

Take North Korea. We have a authoritarian regime there, _with_ nuclear weapons. And now we simply have to appease them when possible. But would the world have been a better place if the US risked a confrontation with China and forced a regime change there, before they got their hands on weapons of mass destruction?

quote:

I don't think Afghanistan is the best example (Iraq is)....perhaps you could argue that the number of deaths in the UK from associated terrorism is pretty low, just looking at it like that it could have been better to simply ignore them...but there have been a lot of attacks elsewhere too (not just usa)....regardless of the nationality of individual attackers, it's the sharia culture of that area which spawns the problem. Having slightly more liberal democratic governments in control is, IMO, a good idea from a western standpoint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Thanks, Owner. They be as sneaky as you claim. But I think it is Obama's War and I am much disappointed he trapped himself with his own campaign rhetoric and did not have the balls to change his mind after three month's pondering the issue.

quote:


ORIGINAL: joether
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.

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Anderson Cooper did not raise the issue, Ann Coulter did. You go with what you have. Also, it's important to look past personalities and reputations and get at the issues.

quote:


ORIGINAL: joether
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".

ORIGINAL: vincentML
During the campaign Obama could have easily said, as Eisenhower did, "I am bringing the troops home." Additionally, I am uncomfortable with the thought which I high-lighted above. We should not ever commit troops without a public debate.

quote:


ORIGINAL: joether
Secondly, one only needs to look at the spending budget for Defense. The current budget for 2011, is for $548 Billion.

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Much more actually. this from a wiki article: "For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3][4] An additional $33 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[5][6] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010."

quote:


ORIGINAL: joether
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.

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Unfortunately, I think you are right. Reps Barney Frank and Ron Paul are submitting a bipartisan bill or resolution demanding DOD cuts. If any success, it will be accompanied by some accounting trickery to fake us out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

"So, let's turn to Afghanistan as a more appropriate and less emotional example. I am hard-pressed to justify any vital national interest for either the US, Canada, or the UK in standing up the Karzai government, especially since our leaders (Obama) is making decisions about the life and death of our young people for no apparent (to me) righteous reason. And so I am positing that these Pols are too facile, too slick by half when they lay out their reasons for this perpetual war.

Our 9/11/2001 and your 7/7/2005 were shocking and tragic incidents. And they may occur again ... maybe worse. But our reaction has been incredible. We mobilized our armed forces and attacked two nations when the culprits were a stateless band of killers who are agrieved with us. There was no equivalency with the attack on Pearl Harbor by an Armada from a hostile nation. The more I ponder the national hysteria and the limits of the attackers the more I become convinced the US way over-reacted and if we don't think through more appropriate tactics we are stuck with perpetual war."

I don't think Afghanistan is the best example (Iraq is)....perhaps you could argue that the number of deaths in the UK from associated terrorism is pretty low, just looking at it like that it could have been better to simply ignore them...but there have been a lot of attacks elsewhere too (not just usa)....regardless of the nationality of individual attackers, it's the sharia culture of that area which spawns the problem. Having slightly more liberal democratic governments in control is, IMO, a good idea from a western standpoint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
But are we in the West responsible for moral justice worldwide, and at what price?

quote:

How do you sort out who is "permitted" WMD?

quote:

We attacked Iraq without UN backing and in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The case for imminent threat fell apart when WMD were not found.

quote:

Is the Bush first strike policy better than what we had with the USSR: Mutually Assured Desctruction? Or madness itself?

quote:


China is also an Authoritarian Regime with nukes. So why strike N.K. but not China?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

It's somewhat offputting when a post starting 'woody well said' goes on to be entirely disagreeable to my eyes.

Not like pulling that kinda crap is what pissed them off in the first place or anything is it....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


The events of yesterday should stiffen our resolve to succeed in Afghanistan. Somalia has become a blight spreading piracy and terrorism around the world (which will have to be dealt with sooner or later). Letting that happen in Afghanistan as well would be disastrous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

"but there are many non-democratic govts with sharia culture."

Not like the Taliban areas there aren't.

@Somalia, the UN is aiding the Ethiopians behind the scenes and has been for years, it's going slowly and ineffectually because they're doing it as cheaply as possible....the Islamic movements there are way too busy fighting the 'legitimate' somali govt & the tribes to put much into international terrorism.... so long as the fighting stays within Somalia no-one cares much. Although the piracy is a recent problem that's maybe making some reconsider, that's not really anything to do with the Islamists in the south.

quote:

The point is, to not give an 'attention whore' like Ann Coulter an ounce of time before the public, when facts are needed, and not opinion.

quote:

An yes, there was a public debate on Afghanistan and Iraq. Its called 'Congress'. As only Congress can declare war on another nation. At the time, the destruction in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C., was still fresh in people's mind. Being told "The Taliban in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden' caused the attack, made the decision...VERY...easy for Congress. Iraq was more of 'conservative politics' in action. Anyone that did not agree with them, was labelled a 'UnAmerican, whom wants the terrorists to win'. Basically, they used propaganda and fear, to get Congress to vote on Iraq.

quote:

Since I see '[1][2]' followed by '[3][4]' and '[5][6]', it would be safe to assume you cut & pasted this from somewere else. Not to bust your balls, but could you give the source of this information?

quote:

So yes, why should anyone except someone like Ann Coulter on any serious subject?