Bring the Troops Home!

[High_Gravity]

Yeah I meant Afghanistan, they need to get the hell out of there. There is no point being in that shit hole anymore.

I know what you meant my friend. I felt the same way when I was in Beirut in '83. Just doing what we were told - sit there and shut up. Only problem - we didn't have a mission.

If there is no clear objective, we shouldn't be in a country. The problem is with Afghanistan we went in there after 9/11 to get Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, help the Afghans and try to do the right thing, but that mission has changed so many times since than I don't even remember what it is now. I have to say I do agree with going in there initially, but I don't agree with staying there now. Fuck that place.

 

[Thunderbird]

We benefit in lots of ways. Lower gas prices. Access to inexpensive resources. Cheap products made in countries where workers don't enjoy the freedoms and benefits we take for granted here. Convenient dumping grounds for our waste. Our military dominance supports our privileged lifestyle while keeping all the things we don't want to deal with at bay.

I disagree. Not only are the wars and endless occupations immoral they do not serve America's interests. The wars and occupations bring instability and higher gas prices. We can trade with countries without setting up puppet regimes.

And the wars and occupations cost billions of dollars.

 

[dblack]

We benefit in lots of ways. Lower gas prices. Access to inexpensive resources. Cheap products made in countries where workers don't enjoy the freedoms and benefits we take for granted here. Convenient dumping grounds for our waste. Our military dominance supports our privileged lifestyle while keeping all the things we don't want to deal with at bay.

I disagree. Not only are the wars and endless occupations immoral they do not serve America's interests. The wars and occupations bring instability and higher gas prices. We can trade with countries without setting up puppet regimes.

And the wars and occupations cost billions of dollars.

Our gas prices are much lower than what the rest of the world pays.

In any case, I totally agree with your point of view. It's a corrupt policy and is, ultimately, hypocritical and against our best interests. But it does benefit us in a short-sighted, immediate way. That's why most people support these policies, even if they can recognize that they're wrong.

 

[Thunderbird]

I have strongly opposed Bush II's stupid war for Israel in Iraq.

You have huh.

When/where was war declared by the U.S. on behalf of Israel? I missed that news item.

Don't be dense.

The Israel Lobby

quote: Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’

At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.

Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the … war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’

 

[mememe]

In general, using our military might to support our corporation's activities worldwide keeps our nation wealthy and insulated from the harsh realities ...

What "nation" that might be, this one

or this one?

 

[dblack]

In general, using our military might to support our corporation's activities worldwide keeps our nation wealthy and insulated from the harsh realities ...

What "nation" that might be, this one

or this one?

Mostly the top one. But the rest of us get trickled on. Fairly substantially, in point of fact.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the warfare/welfare state. I'm fundamentally opposed to it. But we need to recognize that it does "benefit" American citizens. Most of us are much better off than the rest of the world, in large part because of our military dominance. The question is, is it righteous or sustainable?

 

[Grandma]

Mostly the top one. But the rest of us get trickled on. Fairly substantially, in point of fact.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the warfare/welfare state. I'm fundamentally opposed to it. But we need to recognize that it does "benefit" American citizens. Most of us are much better off than the rest of the world, in large part because of our military dominance. The question is, is it righteous or sustainable?

Not anymore. Times change, and the idea of brutish military domination started wearing thin after WW2.
If we really feel a need to be dominant, the "alpha male" country on the planet, the new dominance comes from education and resource management. (Like plentiful clean water.)

 

[mememe]

Mostly the top one. But the rest of us get trickled on. Fairly substantially, in point of fact.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the warfare/welfare state. I'm fundamentally opposed to it. But we need to recognize that it does "benefit" American citizens. Most of us are much better off than the rest of the world, in large part because of our military dominance. The question is, is it righteous or sustainable?

I suppose...

German nation also was benefiting from German military dominance... the end was symbolic...

 

[irosie91]

I think the US is properous----because we are food self sufficient-----and have other natural resources ------in so many varieties and abundance -----the US is not on a conquest program -------Great Britain was-----and that is how it became a big empire

Is anyone suggesting that the US---thru force of arms-----exploits other countries ----ie by FORCE? Which ones?

 

[Desperado]

Way past time to brig our troops home from the Afghanistan
Since Obama got Osoma, we have completed our stated mission there.
If fact, Lets bring them all home!

 

[irosie91]

I agree-----but I do not know the RATIONALE for staying there ANYONE? what are we doing in afghanistan WHAT IS OUR MOTIVE FOR BEING THERE------it seems to me go simply be a country in a mess-------what do our boys do there other than get SHOT AT?

 

[High_Gravity]

I think the US is properous----because we are food self sufficient-----and have other natural resources ------in so many varieties and abundance -----the US is not on a conquest program -------Great Britain was-----and that is how it became a big empire

Is anyone suggesting that the US---thru force of arms-----exploits other countries ----ie by FORCE? Which ones?

We don't.

 

[Desperado]

I agree-----but I do not know the RATIONALE for staying there ANYONE? what are we doing in afghanistan WHAT IS OUR MOTIVE FOR BEING THERE------it seems to me go simply be a country in a mess-------what do our boys do there other than get SHOT AT?

Afghanistan?
Fuck we still have troops in Kosovo!!!
http://www.nato.int/kfor/structur/nations/placemap/kfor_placemat.pdf
How about getting them home too. I don't want to know the motive, Rationale for them being there, because there is none, Just get them home now.

 

[dblack]

I think the US is properous----because we are food self sufficient-----and have other natural resources ------in so many varieties and abundance -----the US is not on a conquest program -------Great Britain was-----and that is how it became a big empire

Is anyone suggesting that the US---thru force of arms-----exploits other countries ----ie by FORCE? Which ones?

Uh, yeah. I am. There's a long list, and not really inclined to delve into it right now. The last hundred years or so of world history establishes it pretty well though.

 

[irosie91]

try to name three countries which are ---as part of the US empire----being forcibly exploited