An end to the Afghan war?

[Mooseman33]

the episode aired originally, it was great....

then they censored the shit out of it...sad how scared we are to offend the big hearted muslims.....

the law should be passed, enough with the bullshit, who the fvk knows whats under there...u no me flagg, bann them all, the whole fvking religion or nation of islam.....

[Flagg]

the episode aired originally, it was great....

then they censored the shit out of it...sad how scared we are to offend the big hearted muslims.....

the law should be passed, enough with the bullshit, who the fvk knows whats under there...u no me flagg, bann them all, the whole fvking religion or nation of islam.....

Yeah it infuriates the fvck out of me how PC we get over certain issues, im a firm believer of "fit in or fvck off" mantra. The fact that muslims seem to get more offended over their religion than anyone else is unfortunate for them but tough shit. If pride is that big an issue, go back to the Middle East. Here in the West we have freedom of speech, which some of these lunatics use as a chance to declare "death to the West". Well I would never take that right away but I would see that as a personal threat, and should be punishable by deportation.

I still don't think we need as much presence in the Middle East as we have either, I want the West to start reinvesting back into domestic issues. Everyone is desperately trying to do something about their deficits, I mean Europe is actually having a whip round to bail out Greece, 48 billion dollars. If you think how much money is spunked up the wall everyday by our presence there and then think about how much better that money could be spent on Western soil.

[thegodfather]

I'll try and address as many points as possible.

1. The Constitution does not authorize us to maintain military bases in 130 out of 190 countries. Our presence in many of these countries has unintended consequences, known as "blow back," a well documented theory by our own Central Intelligence Agency. Let us divorce ourselves from the constitutional argument for a moment, and say that our constitution did authorize our military presence in these nations, we can no longer AFFORD to maintain a military presence in all these countries, we are broke. It is a simple matter of economics. The greatest super powers in history were never brought down by armed conflict, they were brought down because they went broke. The Romans and the USSR, both large superpowers of their day, crumbled because they ran out of many, not because they were defeated militarily.

2. The Constitution does not authorize entangling allia-nces's. Once again, our 'support' of Israel both with weapons and monetarily is not authorized by our Constitution. The founders realized the dangers of entangling a-lliance's, and they said "Trade with all, allies with none"(or something to that effect). Additionally, our support of Israel and the meddling of affairs of countries in the Middle East emboldens our enemies and further contributes to the "blow back" principle our CIA warns us about. The bombs we dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan has done more to bolster Al-Qaeda and other extremist group recruiting efforts than they could have ever done without us. Every time we receive bad intelligence and kill innocent civilians over there, it does nothing except to expand the recruitment efforts of extremist groups who preach hate towards America and the West.

3. We have always achieved more in trading with nations than we ever have in bombing them. A military presence around the world is not a necessity to be prosperous. China has a hugely successful economy, and yet they do not have large military bases in countries throughout the world, that is proof enough that a military presence is not necessary for a successful economy. Our foreign policy needs to be reevaluated as it does much to embolden our enemies, and little to keep us safe. Anyone who believes we need such a large military presence in that many countries, in order to protect the contingent 48 states, and 2 satellite states from attack, is sorely mistaken. There exist very few countries with the ability to invade our mainland, and the only two countries who have that ability would never come to that, via M.A.D.D.

We ought to be following the advice and guidance of the founding fathers of our country. We would be much better off if we had done so. 1 trillion dollars per year could be spent at home improving the quality of life of the citizens of this country, rather than being used to maintain an EMPIRE around the world. Or better yet, 1 trillion dollars a year could not be SPENT AT ALL, to pass on a tax savings to the citizens of this country to REALLY stimulate our economy. Many have been brainwashed into believing our military presence is a necessary evil in so many of these countries, and quite the opposite is true. Military sanctions are an ACT OF WAR, and they hurt no one but the innocent civilians of the countries we sanction, but very little to hurt the governments of these countries.

I hope that many of you take a much harder look at American foreign policy, and I encourage many of you to read books written by Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and other principled conservative Republicans who understand what it means to be a true conservative and to have a humble foreign policy.

[durak]

I'll try and address as many points as possible.

1. The Constitution does not authorize us to maintain military bases in 130 out of 190 countries. Our presence in many of these countries has unintended consequences, known as "blow back," a well documented theory by our own Central Intelligence Agency. Let us divorce ourselves from the constitutional argument for a moment, and say that our constitution did authorize our military presence in these nations, we can no longer AFFORD to maintain a military presence in all these countries, we are broke. It is a simple matter of economics. The greatest super powers in history were never brought down by armed conflict, they were brought down because they went broke. The Romans and the USSR, both large superpowers of their day, crumbled because they ran out of many, not because they were defeated militarily.

2. The Constitution does not authorize entangling allia-nces's. Once again, our 'support' of Israel both with weapons and monetarily is not authorized by our Constitution. The founders realized the dangers of entangling a-lliance's, and they said "Trade with all, allies with none"(or something to that effect). Additionally, our support of Israel and the meddling of affairs of countries in the Middle East emboldens our enemies and further contributes to the "blow back" principle our CIA warns us about. The bombs we dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan has done more to bolster Al-Qaeda and other extremist group recruiting efforts than they could have ever done without us. Every time we receive bad intelligence and kill innocent civilians over there, it does nothing except to expand the recruitment efforts of extremist groups who preach hate towards America and the West.

3. We have always achieved more in trading with nations than we ever have in bombing them. A military presence around the world is not a necessity to be prosperous. China has a hugely successful economy, and yet they do not have large military bases in countries throughout the world, that is proof enough that a military presence is not necessary for a successful economy. Our foreign policy needs to be reevaluated as it does much to embolden our enemies, and little to keep us safe. Anyone who believes we need such a large military presence in that many countries, in order to protect the contingent 48 states, and 2 satellite states from attack, is sorely mistaken. There exist very few countries with the ability to invade our mainland, and the only two countries who have that ability would never come to that, via M.A.D.D.

We ought to be following the advice and guidance of the founding fathers of our country. We would be much better off if we had done so. 1 trillion dollars per year could be spent at home improving the quality of life of the citizens of this country, rather than being used to maintain an EMPIRE around the world. Or better yet, 1 trillion dollars a year could not be SPENT AT ALL, to pass on a tax savings to the citizens of this country to REALLY stimulate our economy. Many have been brainwashed into believing our military presence is a necessary evil in so many of these countries, and quite the opposite is true. Military sanctions are an ACT OF WAR, and they hurt no one but the innocent civilians of the countries we sanction, but very little to hurt the governments of these countries.

I hope that many of you take a much harder look at American foreign policy, and I encourage many of you to read books written by Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and other principled conservative Republicans who understand what it means to be a true conservative and to have a humble foreign policy.

lol... i hope you feel better... please do not lump ron paul in the same group/sentence as Ronald Reagan.

Why is it that you nutters on the right and left always leave these massive posts that wander all over the place and do nothing to address the point at hand? lol...

I am editing this because after reading your post again, I do not think you are even a ron paul supporter. You are a lefty trying to act like a ron paul supporter. lol...

This statement alone proves your ignorance about the state of world affairs. "China has a hugely successful economy, and yet they do not have large military bases in countries throughout the world, that is proof enough that a military presence is not necessary for a successful economy."

Using Communist China as an example of an economy that we should strive for.... sad, so sad. Having been all over china I can tell you that their economy is build on slave labor, child labor, disregard for environmental factors, and outright disdain for the lives of the people in their economy. WE are the only reason they have not attacked taiwan and put forth plans to take over the rest of their region.

And the Chinese DO have troop all over south america, central america, and africa...

By the way, it was the arms race with russia that sucked up so much money that they could not handle the decline in the price of oil.... I bet you did not even know it was the decline in the price of oil that brought down the soviet union...lol...

[FranciscoG]

lol... i hope you feel better... please do not lump ron paul in the same group/sentence as Ronald Reagan.

Why is it that you nutters on the right and left always leave these massive posts that wander all over the place and do nothing to address the point at hand? lol...

I am editing this because after reading your post again, I do not think you are even a ron paul supporter. You are a lefty trying to act like a ron paul supporter. lol...

This statement alone proves your ignorance about the state of world affairs. "China has a hugely successful economy, and yet they do not have large military bases in countries throughout the world, that is proof enough that a military presence is not necessary for a successful economy."

Using Communist China as an example of an economy that we should strive for.... sad, so sad. Having been all over china I can tell you that their economy is build on slave labor, child labor, disregard for environmental factors, and outright disdain for the lives of the people in their economy. WE are the only reason they have not attacked taiwan and put forth plans to take over the rest of their region.

And the Chinese DO have troop all over south america, central america, and africa...

By the way, it was the arms race with russia that sucked up so much money that they could not handle the decline in the price of oil.... I bet you did not even know it was the decline in the price of oil that brought down the soviet union...lol...

Classic using name calling.

You are in no way understanding his whole post.

[durak]

Classic using name calling.

You are in no way understanding his whole post.

When the shoe fits it is a description not name calling. (nutters is a little close but I felt cool using some british lingo picked up from harry potter) And calling the Chinese Communist is not name calling... lol....

remember the dog is watching you.

[FranciscoG]

More classic!

The pro Israel block at it again. I am assumed racist and called a ¨Tru-what-ever-ist¨ because I am against handing out a free money.

Let me explain something real simple that any dumb ass would understand.

It is a difference in VALUES. You see I was brought up looking down on people that get hand-out checks. A nation which was established more than 60 years ago and has to depend on hand-out checks is worthless.

This is wrong by my values. Others, however, do not share these values. Pro handing out a living block, you, support this course of action.

Remember get on your knees and beg boy. Were I come from that is called a lack of values.

No values. Pro handing out. Worthless nation.

Oh and your dog, go on to the food bank and get a hand-out bag of dog food for him.

[thegodfather]

lol... i hope you feel better... please do not lump ron paul in the same group/sentence as Ronald Reagan.

In a way you're right, Ron Paul is a more principled conservative than Ronald Reagan proved to be once in office. However, the platform Ronald Reagan ran on was very similar to Paul's. And while I regard Ronald Reagan to be the best President that this country has ever had to date, in terms of accomplishing many of his conservative initiatives he fell somewhat short. Campaigning on eliminating the Dept. of Education and then doubling it's size during his term comes to mind as one example. I'm not quite sure what your point was though, about not "lumping" Ron Paul with Ronald Reagan as you didn't really elaborate much on the statement.


Why is it that you nutters on the right and left always leave these massive posts that wander all over the place and do nothing to address the point at hand? lol...

Unfortunately my friend, the shoe doesn't fit, so the name calling was unwarranted. The post did not "wander all over the place," as you asserted. Each example was referencing my overall point that many of the United State's ills today are due to the relatively new ideology of the Constitution as some sort of "living document," that can mean pretty much whatever the hell the current administration wants it to. I was advocating instead, a position of strict construction of the Constitution, to be interpreted using mainly a combination of doctrinalism and textualism. I advocate following the advice of our founders, who warned us of the dangers of entangling allia-nces, fractional reserve banking, etc, and so on. Because you failed to pick up on these points does not mean that my post 'wandered' all over the place, or that I was not addressing the point at hand. Undeclared wars and strict interpretation of the Constitution are related very closely. Your inability to grasp these concepts does not make me a 'nutter,' and I would ask that if you wish to engage me in a meaningful and intelligent debate, that you refrain from making defamatory statements such as that, and debate the points of mine with which you disagree.

I am editing this because after reading your post again, I do not think you are even a ron paul supporter. You are a lefty trying to act like a ron paul supporter. lol...

I think that you had better brush up on your understanding of political ideology friend. Republicans have historically been elected to end the wars that Democrats(Those would be the guys on the left side of the aisle, in case you were unaware) start. Your clear lack of understanding of political ideology led you to believe that I was a liberal, because if you had any grasp of political ideology, you would have known that principled conservatives have always been in favor of non-interventionism, and it has only been with the rise of neo-conservatism within the Republican party that has led the party to be seen as war mongering, which was historically reserved for the progressive liberals. It's ok though, that is why they make these things called books, and they have these institutions known as universities, for people like yourself to go to these places, read these books, and then be able to understand these concepts so that you can engage in a debate without looking like a fool (hey, if the shoe fits).


This statement alone proves your ignorance about the state of world affairs. "China has a hugely successful economy, and yet they do not have large military bases in countries throughout the world, that is proof enough that a military presence is not necessary for a successful economy."


Using Communist China as an example of an economy that we should strive for.... sad, so sad. Having been all over china I can tell you that their economy is build on slave labor, child labor, disregard for environmental factors, and outright disdain for the lives of the people in their economy. WE are the only reason they have not attacked taiwan and put forth plans to take over the rest of their region.

And the Chinese DO have troop all over south america, central america, and africa...

I'll concede that China itself was a poor example to use for my argument.
Your argument that China has troops all over SA,CA, and Africa is poor however. China has a troop presence nowhere near the scale of the United States. I also NEVER stated that our economy should strive to be like China's. I simply stated, that a successful economy is not dependent on an empire that occupies 130 of 190 countries with LARGE SCALE military bases. So, that being said, it actually makes the issue of 'HOW' China's economy operates (on slave labor and poor working conditions) a moot point. You used that example to try to evoke some emotional support for your argument, but it is divorced from the issue of military presence and imperialism. However, perhaps a better choice would have been Hong Kong. While they enjoy military protection from China, they enjoy a high degree of autonomy both in their economic policies and their civil liberties. Their people have universal suffrage, and they have one of the most free economies in the world. Thus, their economy enjoys one of the highest growth rates in the world, at roughly 5% per year. That is really unprecedented, and clearly shows that LESS regulation and government interference into the free market results in higher output and profits. Therefore we can conclude, that a strong military presence throughout the world is not a necessity to a prosperous economy.


By the way, it was the arms race with russia that sucked up so much money that they could not handle the decline in the price of oil.... I bet you did not even know it was the decline in the price of oil that brought down the soviet union...lol...

It is a simple matter of economics. The greatest super powers in history were never brought down by armed conflict, they were brought down because they went broke. The Romans and the USSR, both large superpowers of their day, crumbled because they ran out of money, not because they were defeated militarily.

I'm curious, do you know how to read? I did not go so far as to delve into the specifics of HOW each superpower went bankrupt. I simply stated an empirical fact, that two of the largest superpowers in history, the Roman Empire, and the USSR, both dissolved because they went BANKRUPT. The mere fact that I ceased to elaborate further into the CONDITIONS under which each superpower went bankrupt is inconsequential, does not make my statement inaccurate in any way, and does not mean that I didn't know the REASONS for the Soviet Union going bankrupt. That was a rather poor attempt to try and assert some degree of intellectual superiority.

My replies are in written in bold, and I even color coded a few things to make it a little bit easier for you to understand. Yes, it is a rather long winded post, as most issues of complexity do require substantive responses. If the posts are still too long for you and you have trouble understanding the points contained within them, I will try next time to include smaller words and maybe pictures too, kind of like a Dr.Seuss book, and then you will possibly be able to understand the debate taking place.

[Flagg]

In defence of "communist China" and their slave labour, they are going through the throes of their own Industrial Revolution, which when began in the West in the UK 160 years ago, was partly built on slave labour and appalling living conditions in London then. Two thirds of the labour force in cotton mills throughout Scotland and England during the late 18th century were children. Of course no one talks about that sort of stuff now as ultimately, it provided the West with everything that they have today.

160 years from now, when China will be prosperous and have a better quality of life for ALL their citizens, China will see that the state of China as it stood then (today as we know it) would have been a small sacrifice in terms of what they will have now (as in then, 160 years from now).

Durak you've already made your mind up that the West needs to be everywhere because "they will get us" otherwise. Are you not even remotely happy at the thought that an end to the Afghan war could be in sight?