| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2008 01:01:40 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:06:13 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by JH:
I don't get it. With the US economy looking the way it is at the moment, how on earth can the levels of military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan be justified?
Is there some hidden economic benefit in continuing to pump money into these countries? Okay, I'd understand if it was keeping the oil prices down, but that just not happening at all. Or does war benefit the US economy in other ways like arms manufacturers etc.? |
Sure, increased business and profit for arms manufacturers, military contractors (like KBR, Cheney's former employer. He was CEO.), oil companies too.
The Chinese benefit too, since, they're basically loaning the US money for the war. What does that mean for the average American? BOHICA, that's what.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 13:08:12. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:11:58 PM · #28 |
Is it safe to say that this has been one of the worst Presidency's in memory or on record?
Bearing in mind that the Dems only took over the Senate and House in 2006 the Republican Party had full control and a pretty solid shot (Six years ?)to display their policy and how their philosophy would work. I would say they failed miserably.
Ho Hum. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:13:26 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The Chinese benefit too, since, they're basically loaning the US money for the war. What does that mean for the average American? BOHICA, that's what. |
Then why are so many average Americans still supporting the wars? Do they really believe in the freedom/patriotism thing? Or is it that they don't see a link between their personal economic situation, military spending, and what's happening in Iraq?
These questions are genuine, btw, I'm not being facetious here.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:17:50 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The Chinese benefit too, since, they're basically loaning the US money for the war. What does that mean for the average American? BOHICA, that's what. |
Then why are so many average Americans still supporting the wars? Do they really believe in the freedom/patriotism thing? Or is it that they don't see a link between their personal economic situation, military spending, and what's happening in Iraq?
These questions are genuine, btw, I'm not being facetious here. |
I'll give you an honest response. I'm against a rapid pull-out from Iraq because despite the fact that I don't think that we should have been there in the first place, I think we now have a responsibility to help stabalize the region. I will add, though, that I don't think we can do that alone. I think we need help from around the region and around the world. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:20:53 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The Chinese benefit too, since, they're basically loaning the US money for the war. What does that mean for the average American? BOHICA, that's what. |
Then why are so many average Americans still supporting the wars? Do they really believe in the freedom/patriotism thing? Or is it that they don't see a link between their personal economic situation, military spending, and what's happening in Iraq?
These questions are genuine, btw, I'm not being facetious here. |
actually, most Americans are against the war (finally). |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:24:49 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by JH:
Then why are so many average Americans still supporting the wars? Do they really believe in the freedom/patriotism thing? Or is it that they don't see a link between their personal economic situation, military spending, and what's happening in Iraq? |
I would say that many Americans don't believe in the "freedom/patriotism" thing displayed by their lousy voting turnout and their eagerness to escape jury duty.
I would also say that many people are supporting the war for a few reasons. One, that it's hard to have spent so much money, with so many casualties and be able to end it without success. It needs to have meant something. Second, people have trouble admitting they are wrong, especially something this huge.
This war will go down in history...correction, it has already gone down in history as one of the worlds greatest political blunders. It will cost us a ton more money, many more lives and time but we may be able to salvage some grace or closure AND then we can feel better about it.
Making sense of the Middle East ain't easy.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 13:41:48. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:31:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Is it safe to say that this has been one of the worst Presidency's in memory or on record? |
Safe to say in front of me! :-)
However, there are so many antagonistic threads on this subject already, I'd hate to see this degenerate into another one.
Unarguably (word?), the gap in income between those at the top and the rest of U.S. workers is immense. The gap between rich and poor continues to increase. Someone told me that, at least in the case of Lehman, the gov't has put a freeze on the huge CEO severance packages -- at least for now. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:35:32 PM · #34 |
I don't know what you guys are so concerned about. Movies about the Great Depression have a quaint quality, don't you think? So why not just embrace the Great Depression of 2009?
;-)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:39:41 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I don't know what you guys are so concerned about. Movies about the Great Depression have a quaint quality, don't you think? So why not just embrace the Great Depression of 2009?
;-) |
Yeah, I've heard everything is turning sepia on 1st Jan 2009.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:58:32 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
 |
It is a good time to begin to learn how to speak Chinese. We have sold our country to them. Thank you US government, for the free trade agreements and NAFTA. We better learn how to farm small again, and soon if we want to keep eating. The thing that scares me is that there are 10 times more Americans now to feed than in 1929.
This is my son Robert's 60 ft long bail out plan:
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 02:12:09 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The Chinese benefit too, since, they're basically loaning the US money for the war. What does that mean for the average American? BOHICA, that's what. |
Then why are so many average Americans still supporting the wars? Do they really believe in the freedom/patriotism thing? Or is it that they don't see a link between their personal economic situation, military spending, and what's happening in Iraq?
These questions are genuine, btw, I'm not being facetious here. |
The wars are two different issues. I support the war in Afghanistan. I do not support the war in Iraq. I could elaborate on my views, but this is not the place.
I'd say that the majority of Americans do not support the war in Iraq, which is the main issue behind the president's dismal approval rating. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 02:48:25 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The wars are two different issues. I support the war in Afghanistan. ... I could elaborate on my views, but this is not the place. |
Too bad.. I'd be interested. I'm not informed enough to know whether or not I should be supporting that conflict (and thus Canada's contribution and its foreign policy position). Not to derail, but I just wonder what makes one just and the other unjust for people, aside from the obvious issues Iraq is fraught with. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 02:53:33 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The wars are two different issues. I support the war in Afghanistan. ... I could elaborate on my views, but this is not the place. |
Too bad.. I'd be interested. I'm not informed enough to know whether or not I should be supporting that conflict (and thus Canada's contribution and its foreign policy position). Not to derail, but I just wonder what makes one just and the other unjust for people, aside from the obvious issues Iraq is fraught with. |
I'm against both wars, for the record. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 03:02:39 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 03:04:49 PM · #41 |
| Oddly enough, I am not a proponent of wars in general. Messy, expensive things. Why Afghanistan and not Iraq? Though not able to venture "outside the wire" in either location, I did get the impression that Iraq can take care of itself. It may not be in the form that the US political powers wish it to be; there will be religious and class divisions, there will be internal conflict. People who see things from a democratic/free society'ish viewpoint will not agree with the divisions, but it is not "our" way of life to determine. I did not get that same impression in Afghanistan; I don't know that a war is the answer, but packing up and leaving isn't either. I get the impression there is a lot of good that can be done in Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 03:12:29 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly enough, I am not a proponent of wars in general. Messy, expensive things. Why Afghanistan and not Iraq? Though not able to venture "outside the wire" in either location, I did get the impression that Iraq can take care of itself. It may not be in the form that the US political powers wish it to be; there will be religious and class divisions, there will be internal conflict. People who see things from a democratic/free society'ish viewpoint will not agree with the divisions, but it is not "our" way of life to determine. I did not get that same impression in Afghanistan; I don't know that a war is the answer, but packing up and leaving isn't either. I get the impression there is a lot of good that can be done in Afghanistan. |
Yeah, I don't know what the solution is, either. Just because I'm against the war doesn't mean I think we should pretend it never happened.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:13:05 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly enough, I am not a proponent of wars in general. Messy, expensive things. Why Afghanistan and not Iraq? Though not able to venture "outside the wire" in either location, I did get the impression that Iraq can take care of itself. It may not be in the form that the US political powers wish it to be; there will be religious and class divisions, there will be internal conflict. People who see things from a democratic/free society'ish viewpoint will not agree with the divisions, but it is not "our" way of life to determine. I did not get that same impression in Afghanistan; I don't know that a war is the answer, but packing up and leaving isn't either. I get the impression there is a lot of good that can be done in Afghanistan. |
That's interesting from an insider's perspective. What's with the fighting? I understand that the Taliban is seeking to reassert itself; is the US relying on other powers to stave that off? Why? Doesn't the country also need a contingent that's there not in a combative role, but a supportive or peacekeeping one? Those are my concerns, and I'm afraid that, as a Canadian, my government is trying to assert its armed forces as a combative body contrary to our historic role and the wishes of the majority of the populace. I could "support our troops" over there (a phrase that chills me because of its implied politicization) if I knew that some good was actually being done, as opposed to our forces just racking up the body count. "X number of Taliban were killed today" and so forth. As it stands, I can only claim ignorance of the situation, because I have no idea what's being done and why, and if it will ever mean anything other than human misery. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:29:12 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Oddly enough, I am not a proponent of wars in general. Messy, expensive things. Why Afghanistan and not Iraq? Though not able to venture "outside the wire" in either location, I did get the impression that Iraq can take care of itself. It may not be in the form that the US political powers wish it to be; there will be religious and class divisions, there will be internal conflict. People who see things from a democratic/free society'ish viewpoint will not agree with the divisions, but it is not "our" way of life to determine. I did not get that same impression in Afghanistan; I don't know that a war is the answer, but packing up and leaving isn't either. I get the impression there is a lot of good that can be done in Afghanistan. |
That's interesting from an insider's perspective. What's with the fighting? I understand that the Taliban is seeking to reassert itself; is the US relying on other powers to stave that off? Why? Doesn't the country also need a contingent that's there not in a combative role, but a supportive or peacekeeping one? Those are my concerns, and I'm afraid that, as a Canadian, my government is trying to assert its armed forces as a combative body contrary to our historic role and the wishes of the majority of the populace. I could "support our troops" over there (a phrase that chills me because of its implied politicization) if I knew that some good was actually being done, as opposed to our forces just racking up the body count. "X number of Taliban were killed today" and so forth. As it stands, I can only claim ignorance of the situation, because I have no idea what's being done and why, and if it will ever mean anything other than human misery. |
I'd wager that there's significant support/peacekeeping presence inside Afghanistan. This article, although from 2002, shows the kinds of things that the U.S. Army's Civil Affairs units do in combat zones.
The same author, also spent 6 mo with a CA unit in Bagdhad and wrote a book about the experience.
It's not all shoot 'em up, smart bombs and Stryker teams. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:29:38 PM · #45 |
A great deal of what is being done in Afghanistan is non-combative or at least intended to be. More would be so if those who opposed the presence of outsiders would quit blowing things up and shooting people, but that is a valid way for them to try to rid the country of them/us, I suppose. One of the missions at a Forward Operating Base I visited was to help rebuild and/or build up the area near the FOB. The US military contingent was primarily focused on civil engineering tasks; security was provided by a Polish contingent - to protect the FOB and protect the troops while out rebuilding stuff. Their mission had nothing to do with seeking out or destroying the enemy. Every morning a very large contingent of Afghani workers came to the FOB to construct new facilities there, too. Those types of activities generally don't involve a body count, and generally don't make news. Please do note that I claim no superior knowledge of the situation or the complexities, and the complexities are significant. It is, however, worth further investigation through any means you might find available.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:59:09 PM · #46 |
But there are hundreds of impoverished countries who would benefit from international aid and rebuilding and might even appreciate it, rather than sending in the suicide bombers. Why Afghanistan?
If the administration wants to spend billions of dollars helping an economy to recover, why not spend it on the US ? |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 05:03:45 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by JH:
If the administration wants to spend billions of dollars helping an economy to recover, why not spend it on the US ? |
If only they would - there's plenty of things in this country that need fixing, and that money could do it. Not to mention, we should clean up our own yard before we go telling other countries how to clean up theirs.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 05:41:51 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by JH:
But there are hundreds of impoverished countries who would benefit from international aid and rebuilding and might even appreciate it, rather than sending in the suicide bombers. Why Afghanistan?
|
Why indeed.
The mess inside Afghanistan is largely a result of U.S. Cold War policy and our earlier foray into Afghanistan.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, they were annihilating Afghans like crazy and while the Mujahadeen were brave fighters, they were no match for superior Soviet firepower. Plenty of fighters from other muslim countries came to fight alongside their afghan brothers (Osama bin Laden, among them) The US gets the idea that by helping the Afghans fight the Soviets, they can, in effect, stick it to the Soviets like they did to us in SE Asia, I dunno. Anyway, the U.S. started funneling arms and training to the poor Afghans via Pakistan. Things like AK-47's from Egypt and Israel, Stinger shoulder-fired missiles, RPG's, mines etc. The U.S. was fighting a proxy war with the Soviets and the Afghans were our proxy in this war, since direct action by our forces would have ignited global conflict(i.e. WWIII). In exchange for their service in doing the dirty work killing our common enemy, we made friends with the Afghans, made all kinds of promises of how we would help them rebuild their country once they had vanquished the infidels.
Only it didn't quite work out that way. When the Soviets retreated with their tails between their legs in 1989, the U.S. largely packed up and went home too, leaving Afghanistan hanging in the breeze with little or no government. The warlords, jihadists and outlaws who had been betrayed by the US, were pissed. They also had guns and enough cohesiveness to create the Taliban, step into the power vacuum and form a central government, imposing Sharia law and all that entails. They were also eager to accept money from a rich Saudi named Osama bin Laden who had fought the Soviets, shared their extreme muslim vaues and harbored an intense hatred of the West who wanted to establish training camps for fighters engaged in a holy war against Western powers.
It took 9/11 to spark the U.S. into action and well, you know the rest of that story.
The simple fact is that the U.S. has unfinished business in Afghanistan, business that should have been taken care of nearly 2 decades ago. Had the U.S. kept their promises to the Afghans, I doubt we'd be there fighting today.
In essence, the Afghans helped the U.S. bloody the nose of the Soviets and when it was time to repay them for their hard work, the U.S. ran off without paying the bill. Kinda came back to bite the U.S. in the ass.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 17:42:46. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:31:17 PM · #49 |
I agree with your take on the Afghanistan situation 99. Now we need to be there and to do our best to right the wrong. It's going to be a long tough campaign there because bitterness dies slowly if ever.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:35:21 PM · #50 |
| An interesting article about Pakistan's role in Afghanistan and where we are headed with them considering their new directive to fire on any US troops crossing into their territory. |
|
