Bring the troops home or not???

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mensch1351, May 11, 2011.

  1. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Tonite on MSNBC the question was raised as to whether or not we continue our presence in Afghanistan and for how long?? The Polls now seem to favor withdrawl. Your opinion and WHY do you feel/think that way??
     
  2. B_BENDERBOY

    B_BENDERBOY New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    EDINBURGH
    They're talking about bringing brittish troops home early too, i say yeah i'm quickly running out of people to fuck around here.
     
  3. hypoc8

    hypoc8 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    SC
    I say bring them home and stop being the worlds keeper. Let these people fight their own battles! We nor anyone else is ever going to change these people.
     
  4. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    at least they have a job there.
     
  5. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,913
    Likes Received:
    637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    I think the UK troops in Afghanistan should be brought home. It is hard to see what they are achieving. If there is a real benefit it hasn't been communicated to people in the UK.
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I've been wanting to see these wars in the Middle East end a long time ago.
     
  7. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    We should bring home the USA Troops ASAP and be real, real nice to them.
     
  8. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    There is no reason to wish for an American Empire: end the wars, bring the troops home.
     
  9. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,274
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Bring them all home, NOW.
     
  10. At.your.cervix

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,493
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philly
    If there was even a remote possibility that we could enhance the quality of life for the Afghanis or the Iraqis, there might be an argument for maintaining a troop presence, but there's not. Whenever we pull out, be it 30 days or 30 years from now, what will follow is a chaotic power transfer, with many deaths, and ultimately a return to a social/political structure not too terribly far removed from what was existant before our intervention. I find no pleasure in saying that. Given the inevitable consequences, I say better sooner than later, as postponing the inevitable will only cost us more in dollars and in lives. The invasion of both nations, without any clearcut, realistic, long term planning for what happens after the invasions, was foolhardy and costly. Hopefully we'll learn not to do such again, for a long while. It has literally put every American's future in serious jeopardy.

    But we ought not stop there. The US should withdraw its troops from around the world. Why do we keep our armed forces in Korea, Japan, Germany, and a whole host of other nations scattered around the globe? Not for American defense, but for American intervention. Germany, Korea, and Japan can afford to protect themselves. Nobody today is afraid of Germany and japan having standing armies in the 21st Century. And maybe with a higher percentage of those nation's GDP going to defense, and ours being lessened, the relative costs of goods from the US will become more attractive in the world market.

    I'm not calling for an isolationist policy, just a miltary policy which is based upon defending our shores, and not those of others'. And when there is a situation in which we feel compelled to intervene, we can do so with the troops which we have on active duty, stationed within our borders, not with a massive standing army and navy stationed around the world.

    My two cents.
     
  11. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,581
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Make it four cents.
     
  12. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Hell, make it a whole fucking dollar.
     
  13. At.your.cervix

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,493
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1,358
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Philly
    Too bad a dollar is only worth what it is today, and not what it was before we started this whole damned mess.
     
  14. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Thanks for the responses so far ------ anybody from the "other" side??? You see --- we were all called "unpatriotic" if we opposed the wars in the first place!!! Has the hard lesson of "politics of fear" leading to a massive mistake been learned or are we still primed for the next time someone triggers off a terrorist attack on our soil and we as a nation follow the voices of "revenge" no matter where they lead us??
     
    #14 Mensch1351, May 13, 2011
    Last edited: May 13, 2011
  15. Bardox

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,145
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    348
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    I'll put in my 2 cents as well. The troops were sent to defend us from the "axis of evil", then it was to fight the "Evil Doers". When the rabblings of a retarded president wasn't enough, they cooked up the "weapons of mass destruction" story to justify the war. Here we are 10 years, 4,000+ Dead and 30,000+ more wounded, no nukes, no oil (which was the real reason for invading Iraq), one dead dictator, and one dead radical islamic figure later. Anyone feel we've really won anything?

    Al Qaeda is still a threat that cannot be ignored and will continue to be so. Let's face it, completely removing all US troops is never going to happen. US still has troops in germany for gods sake. I'm pretty sure hitler dead. Cutting the number of troops back from the insane levels it's at now in Iraq to maybe 10 or 20 thousand is the more likely out come. There is no justification left for maintaining these levels any longer.
     
  16. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    I'm not from the other side, but i will try to answer. I dont think the US attacked for reasons of revenge. I think they attacked for reasons of boosting the personal positions of the politicians who were behind the attacks, but also in a belief that the power and influence of the US would be boosted.There is a certain momentum to international intervention which gives not simply a feeling of power, but actual power...at least if it comes off. Successful military action brings gains for the victors and always has.

    In Britain, argentina invaded the Falkland islands. Britain had been trying to give them away...but it just wasnt acceptable for someone to take them. So britain went to war and took them back. It was a relatively simple campaign compared to what the US has been doing now, but still risky for a small country like Britain. But it worked. Galtiere fell. thatcher became a national icon. Britain was landed with an annual bill for defending the damn islands to make sure it doesnt hapen again and was obliged to pour money into making them livable whereas it had been determinedly neglecting them for decades in the hope the people would just leave or die of neglect. National pride was boosted. it is just possible there will be exploitable oil reserves there so who knows, we may even turn a profit one day. The Falklands, incidentally, were British because they were a refuelling station for the worlds greatest fleet, the royal navy, which at that time was the world No. 1 superpower. So the whole thing was a legacy of superpower politics. These things just keep coming back to bite you.

    One of the secrets of the success of the british empire was the use of minimal force. Never do anything if it can be avoided. Divide and conquer. Get the locals to do the fighting for you. Maybe an even bigger secret was that the machine gun beats the spear every time. Perhaps the US has not quite got the hang of the the difficulties which arise when the other side also has machine guns. Nor has it quite grasped that when invading a country, it helps if at least one sizeable group is on your side. There are a lot of military people these days saying that a successful campaign needs to have a goal to achieve which will demonstrate victory. Um. So what would that be, 100 men and a few helicopters taking out the evil genius behind the incident which started this or 10,000,000 men wandering about several countries getting shot at, at enormous cost and increasingly annoying all the locals?

    Then, the US government is a crazy beast and one of the few things it has the power to do is wage war. So perhaps the US federal government has more incentive to indulge in war for personal gain than do most national governments. In the UK we spend a lot of time arguing about the national health service - government funded and run - and all those things which in the US are the business of state governments. National politicians have to do something. Since world war 1 a good part of the business of the US has been selling arms to the world. It has made a lot of money for the US. The arms industry is enormously powerful and all that internal expenditure also needs a justification. Why have such vast forces if they are never used?

    So I'd say you have a government which has nothing better to do and is obsessed with the american empire. It has the usual problems that it is run by an aristocracy which needs to defend its own self interest. occasionaly a bone has to be thrown to the people. If its any comfort, i think the UK government has also jumped on the bandwagon of an obsession with terrorists. This simply did not happen when the IRA were regularly blowing up buildings in London and elsewhere. I put it down to the generational difference now, where there are very few people still in authority who have experienced real war. In ww2 large chunks of London disappeared nightly, and this put the IRAs efforts into perspective. I have heard one or two accounts from people who survived real war situations and thereafter never put up with political bullshit ever again.
     
  17. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I have a opinion on this, but the topic is so broad that I can't do it justice. I think two points should be brought up:

    1. To paraphrase Clausewitz, 'war is politics by other means'. Unless you are able to define the relationship between 'war-fighting ability' and 'political will shaping', you can't really have a discussion. It's easy to say, 'hell yeah, bring home the troops' (I'm speaking in general, not in any specific theater or context) -- and I'd generally agree with those sentiments -- but you have to consider the political consequences of that action. Those consequences are here, there, and everywhere. They reach far beyond the immediate and well into the future. There are political, economic, social and -- I think -- moral implications to those consequences. Which leads to the second point...
    2. Do troops outside of our borders serve any moral purpose? I know this is a tough call, but my point here is simple. Aside from Ayn Rand, I think most people have difficulty saying that we have absolutely no moral obligation to protect or prevent others from calamity -- either human or natural. So, what do we owe to others?
    This is a very topical subject because of the financial implications of 'bringing home the troops'. We have nothing but red ink in front of us and Defense spending today constitutes almost 20 cents out of every dollar in the federal budget.
     
  18. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,866
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    From my perspective I would be extremely sceptical that the the US would have sent even one soldier on the basis of moral or humanitarian reasons. Nothing personal against the US, because frankly no country acts for humanitarian reasons. They all do it for national interest. The aim of US intervention is to make the world a better place for US citizens. It may be a happy coincidence that troops fighting for oil, or a favourable trade deal, also happen to get rid of a nasty dictator, but looking at the historical record it is just as likely things will go worse for the people after intervention.

    In the US case I think the best interest of US citizens would be served by giving up dreams of empire. Worry instead about fixing the us economy. Which is tricky, given the vast proportion of national wealth invested in the arms industry rather than, say, roadbuilding.
     
  19. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    I want to respect your views, because I think you're a smart guy, but your first statement {bolded above} is what I want to respond to.

    The military is often engaged in missions that are humanitarian in nature: assisting refugees, providing assistance to the victims of natural disasters or evacuating non-combatants from high risk areas, to name a few.

    I have two Humanitarian Service Medals -- or more accurately, a Humanitarian Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster -- for two incidents that I believe had no real military or economic benefit to the United States and were possible only because of where I was stationed at the time overseas and the fact that the US military had an installation in the local region.

    To bring up a more recent incident, just think about the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan... are you aware that as of 25 March, the US Air Force had generated 265 sorties moving 3,315 passengers and more than 2,512 short tons (5,025,600 million lbs) of cargo in support of Japan Relief Efforts? That was in the first ten days after the event and that is just one of dozens of items listed at Japan Security Watch.

    To the extent that nobody does a favor without the expectation of a reward, you might be right. But, the military using its reach and resources to provide humanitarian assistance happens more than you might think.
     
  20. Pierced1953

    Pierced1953 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    662
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    naked Tn

    Your message was worth a million dollars, wait, we only do billions, just ask your president who gave away over 3.+ billions to reward our so called friends over there in three days, despite the voice of the American people.

    Where have you been? A man with common sense, who hates killings, spending money on useless and corruption for things that will never change. You must be out of your mind, oh, you must have been up on a good history book. By god you wouldn't last a day in DC.

    As one post states that the US only helps to benefit itself, how true that is. Now tell a country that is different, answer= none. No country has lost the amount of soldiers that we have for fighting for their freedom nor spent the money. What did we gain from WW1, WW2, Korea, VN ? I guess A more secure US. Though it is true that when tragedy/crisis strikes we are there to help because we have military bases all over the world and at our expense. When will the US ever be paid back? Well we have, by cheap oil which we so despartely need and that '' ALL '' folks. When has one country ever come to our aid in this country during a crisis, I think never, but could be wrong.

    Right now the truth about winning the wars over there is say, not true. There staying over there to keep the ratings of your president up, so the employement % does not go up if they return home, same as the Bush area did. You see the government would rather see the deaths of your loved ones than be found out as the corrupt SOB's they are.

    Though I am very proud to say I am an American, the country who has fed the world, bla,bla,bla.....I say it's about time we take care of the people who built, served, died for this country and many other's to take care of ourselves, protect our borders, respect the elderly, the vets, the tax payers, our children, to accept our immigrants,stop corruption, to support our farmers who feed the world and to hear the voice of the American People.

    The government has seperated the people, all looking for what's best for me and not for the country and we have fallen into their BS. If we stay divided we will fail and they will win. If we revolutionlize we are all done, everyone!

    Think..........Bring home all those troops, cia, fbi, special forces. COULD we not protect our borders? ....Just think what we could do with trillions of dollars to help the American people, even those old fucks who are eating spam and crackers, stupid mothers feeding their babies solid foods like cheap hamburger instead of healthy fomulas, vets living on the streets and the governemnt promoting cheap antidepressits to keep you on the couch like some stupid moron, to keep you silent.

    Here's an example; Egypt [ 35+ billion, revolution, succeded, women still supressed, no named governemt= failure].

    BRING OUR TROOPS HOME = YOU BET YOUR SWEET ASS!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted