PDA

View Full Version : Bush's War vs. Supporting our troops



jnkbortka
04-12-2011, 11:00 AM
I support the troops. I Always have. But i do not see why we are in the middle east and pretty much every other part of the world, when we have our own problems. why are we pouring billions upon billions of dollars into a war that is pretty much turning into Vietnam II? Isnt that kind of against the whole point of being conservative? We should be ending foriegn involvement and cutting all that money, and working to pay off the debt, not increasing it.

Wei Wu Wei
04-12-2011, 11:33 AM
I support the troops. I Always have. But i do not see why we are in the middle east and pretty much every other part of the world, when we have our own problems. why are we pouring billions upon billions of dollars into a war that is pretty much turning into Vietnam II? Isnt that kind of against the whole point of being conservative? We should be ending foriegn involvement and cutting all that money, and working to pay off the debt, not increasing it.

enjoy your ban

being a conservative is about kicking ass, eating steak, drinking beer, wearing boots, driving trucks, shooting guns, and not reading

if you aren't willing to fight to protect freedom then GET OUT

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 11:56 AM
enjoy your ban

being a conservative is about kicking ass, eating steak, drinking beer, wearing boots, driving trucks, shooting guns, and not reading

if you aren't willing to fight to protect freedom then GET OUT

Both of you can eat a dick.

Rebel Yell
04-12-2011, 12:01 PM
enjoy your ban

being a conservative is about kicking ass, eating steak, drinking beer, wearing boots, driving trucks, shooting guns, and not reading

if you aren't willing to fight to protect freedom then GET OUT

Yet here you are.

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 12:01 PM
I support the troops. I Always have. But i do not see why we are in the middle east and pretty much every other part of the world, when we have our own problems. why are we pouring billions upon billions of dollars into a war that is pretty much turning into Vietnam II? Isnt that kind of against the whole point of being conservative? We should be ending foriegn involvement and cutting all that money, and working to pay off the debt, not increasing it.
We are in the Middle East because of several things.

Afghanistan provided safe harbor to terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans in one day, and refused requests for extradition.
Saddam Hussein's regime had demonstrated a WMD capability on multiple occasions, including battlefield deployment against Iran and against Kurdish civilians. After 9/11, Saddam refused to account for his programs and would not permit inspectors in to confirm his claims. His regime was complicit in the first WTC bombing (1993) and other terror acts and it was determined that the risk of a rogue regime with a WMD capability and a history of terror attacks against Americans was too much of a risk to our security to tolerate.

Conservatism does not mean isolationism. The foreign entanglements that Washington opposed were permanent alliances based on ethnic/tribal ties to Europe. The founders never opposed military alliances or the use of military force to defend the nation, even if that meant projection of power beyond our borders. Before going to war with the Barbary Pirates, Jefferson and Adams had sought to create a multinational force to secure the sea lanes against them, but ultimately ended up having to go it alone when the British and other Euopean powers declined (sound familiar?).

Our national debt is not the result of military expenditures. Defense spending as both a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of federal spending has declined precipitously since the end of WWII. The US military is smaller now than it was a decade ago, despite being involved in two wars (three, if you count Libya). The US Navy has been reduced from over 600 ships under Reagan to just under 300 now, and we have fewer Aircraft Carriers and carrier groups than at any time since the Cold War. Our debt is the result of the expansion of the federal government into areas in which it was never intended to be involved. There is nothng in the Constitution authorizing federal entitlement programs, oversight of education, energy, college sports programs, lightbulb manufacturing, toilet capacities or a host of other federal mandates and rules that dictate areas of our lives, from the graniose to the trivial. A government that seeks to manage every aspect of the lives of its citizens will soon fail to address its real responsibilities and cannot succeed at its expanded ones.

enjoy your ban

being a conservative is about kicking ass, eating steak, drinking beer, wearing boots, driving trucks, shooting guns, and not reading

if you aren't willing to fight to protect freedom then GET OUT

Wei, a bit of guidance for you:

Short bus 101:

Bring your own crayon
Only lick the window with your name above it
Don't pick the Styrofoam from your helmet, someone will eat it!

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 12:13 PM
I love beer, had steak this last Sunday, own three weapons, and shoot trap occassionally.

But I also read quite a bit and do not drive a truck. I guess that makes me a moderate.

Do hiking boots count?

KhrushchevsShoe
04-12-2011, 12:22 PM
I love beer, had steak this last Sunday, own three weapons, and shoot trap occassionally.

But I also read quite a bit and do not drive a truck. I guess that makes me a moderate.

Do hiking boots count?

I think that makes you a militant hippie.

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 12:26 PM
I think that makes you a militant hippie.

I was born in the 60's. I'm too young to be a hippie.

Rockntractor
04-12-2011, 12:27 PM
enjoy your ban

being a conservative is about kicking ass, eating steak, drinking beer, wearing boots, driving trucks, shooting guns, and not reading

if you aren't willing to fight to protect freedom then GET OUT

Did I here you say you wanted to be banned Wei?

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 12:27 PM
Did I here you say you wanted to be banned Wei?

Is that what you here'd?

Novaheart
04-12-2011, 12:29 PM
Both of you can eat a dick.

For some reason, I think the texture would be similar to beef liver. Biting through it that is. If you meant sucking rather than eating, well, you probably know that would be different.

CueSi
04-12-2011, 12:48 PM
For some reason, I think the texture would be similar to beef liver. Biting through it that is. If you meant sucking rather than eating, well, you probably know that would be different.

Actually, based on Albert Fish's confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish)... it's actually pretty good. (I confused the penis and testicles for a moment b/c he used child-terms. Bastard.)

~QC

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 01:10 PM
Did I here you say you wanted to be banned Wei?


Hell make it a trifecta!

Rockntractor
04-12-2011, 01:23 PM
Is that what you here'd?

Maybe he was making a funny.:confused:

eagleexpress
04-12-2011, 01:33 PM
Both of you can eat a dick.

Maybe they can eat each others they both are the uneducated ones

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 01:37 PM
Actually, based on Albert Fish's confessions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish)... it's actually pretty good. (I confused the penis and testicles for a moment b/c he used child-terms. Bastard.)

~QC

Okay, I didn't want of need to know that. Ever. :eek:

fettpett
04-12-2011, 03:00 PM
Okay, I didn't want of need to know that. Ever. :eek:

amen

jnkbortka
04-12-2011, 03:19 PM
We are in the Middle East because of several things.

Afghanistan provided safe harbor to terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans in one day, and refused requests for extradition.
Saddam Hussein's regime had demonstrated a WMD capability on multiple occasions, including battlefield deployment against Iran and against Kurdish civilians. After 9/11, Saddam refused to account for his programs and would not permit inspectors in to confirm his claims. His regime was complicit in the first WTC bombing (1993) and other terror acts and it was determined that the risk of a rogue regime with a WMD capability and a history of terror attacks against Americans was too much of a risk to our security to tolerate.

I realize that we had to go to war in the first place, i just dont see the point of continuing any longer


Conservatism does not mean isolationism. The foreign entanglements that Washington opposed were permanent alliances based on ethnic/tribal ties to Europe. The founders never opposed military alliances or the use of military force to defend the nation, even if that meant projection of power beyond our borders. Before going to war with the Barbary Pirates, Jefferson and Adams had sought to create a multinational force to secure the sea lanes against them, but ultimately ended up having to go it alone when the British and other Euopean powers declined (sound familiar?).

I understand that, but I was thinking fiscal conservatism


Our national debt is not the result of military expenditures. Defense spending as both a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of federal spending has declined precipitously since the end of WWII. The US military is smaller now than it was a decade ago, despite being involved in two wars (three, if you count Libya). The US Navy has been reduced from over 600 ships under Reagan to just under 300 now, and we have fewer Aircraft Carriers and carrier groups than at any time since the Cold War. Our debt is the result of the expansion of the federal government into areas in which it was never intended to be involved. There is nothng in the Constitution authorizing federal entitlement programs, oversight of education, energy, college sports programs, lightbulb manufacturing, toilet capacities or a host of other federal mandates and rules that dictate areas of our lives, from the graniose to the trivial. A government that seeks to manage every aspect of the lives of its citizens will soon fail to address its real responsibilities and cannot succeed at its expanded ones.

I didnt say it wasnt a result of entitlement programs and such, i just said involvment in iraq had a part to play. Stopping the war would help us get the debt under control, but there definatly is more we'd need to do can do.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

to everyone else, please dont think im a hippy :P i understand that war is sometimes neccesary

enslaved1
04-12-2011, 03:35 PM
I realize that we had to go to war in the first place, i just dont see the point of continuing any longer



I'll jump in on that one, just cause I have been sitting back enjoying several conversations/arguments/beatdowns going on in last few days. Unfortunately, we can't just pull out without a solid governing force in place, because the area is extremely unstable and likely to fall victim to more Taliban-style rule, as we are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, ect. That was the danger of going into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and that danger has come to fruition by numerous idiots on both sides of the aisle playing politics with the military, along with lots of loud idiots waving signs around, shouting and running their short-sighted mouths on DU. The short sightedness is that it would be nice to just say fuggedaboutit, but to do so is going to leave a wide open recruiting and training ground for the dirtbags who want 9/11 to be the tip of the iceberg.

Arroyo_Doble
04-12-2011, 03:38 PM
I'll jump in on that one, just cause I have been sitting back enjoying several conversations/arguments/beatdowns going on in last few days. Unfortunately, we can't just pull out without a solid governing force in place, because the area is extremely unstable and likely to fall victim to more Taliban-style rule, as we are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, ect. That was the danger of going into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and that danger has come to fruition by numerous idiots on both sides of the aisle playing politics with the military, along with lots of loud idiots waving signs around, shouting and running their short-sighted mouths on DU. The short sightedness is that it would be nice to just say fuggedaboutit, but to do so is going to leave a wide open recruiting and training ground for the dirtbags who want 9/11 to be the tip of the iceberg.

I agree, to a certain extent.

Once you commit to war, you have to see it through. If nothing else, it will teach you that you shouldn't be so cavalier about engaging in them.

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 03:56 PM
I realize that we had to go to war in the first place, i just dont see the point of continuing any longer
Withdrawal will create a power vaccuum that will be filled by the most powerful elements in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, that's the Taliban. In Iraq, that's Iran (which will initially play through proxies, such as Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army). In both cases, we would be empowering virulently anti-American agencies which have a stated goal of the destruction of the US and all of western civilization. Also, a withdrawal would demonstrate fatal weakness on our part and encourage our enemies to take bolder actions. Remember that 9/11 followed several highly provocative terror acts that had gone unavenged.


I understand that, but I was thinking fiscal conservatism
Fiscal conservatism is a part of conservatism as a whole. The central tenet of American conservatism is American exceptionalism, the idea that America is unique among nations. A fiscal conservative who was willing to oversee the decline of America is not a conservative.


I didnt say it wasnt a result of entitlement programs and such, i just said involvment in iraq had a part to play. Stopping the war would help us get the debt under control, but there definatly is more we'd need to do can do.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
I didn't say that you did say that. But those who would gut national defense to balance the budget are usually more interested in gutting defense than they are in balancing the budget.


to everyone else, please dont think im a hippy :P i understand that war is sometimes neccesary

Just bathe regularly and get a haircut and no one will make that mistake. :D

jnkbortka
04-12-2011, 07:24 PM
I'll jump in on that one, just cause I have been sitting back enjoying several conversations/arguments/beatdowns going on in last few days. Unfortunately, we can't just pull out without a solid governing force in place, because the area is extremely unstable and likely to fall victim to more Taliban-style rule, as we are seeing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, ect. That was the danger of going into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place, and that danger has come to fruition by numerous idiots on both sides of the aisle playing politics with the military, along with lots of loud idiots waving signs around, shouting and running their short-sighted mouths on DU. The short sightedness is that it would be nice to just say fuggedaboutit, but to do so is going to leave a wide open recruiting and training ground for the dirtbags who want 9/11 to be the tip of the iceberg.

That does make a lot of sense. I still think we should be looking for a way to get out of this war though.

CueSi
04-12-2011, 07:30 PM
Okay, I didn't want of need to know that. Ever. :eek:

ROFL, You clicky'd the link, didn't you, Major? I should have warned you, but it's wikipedia. :p

~QC

Madisonian
04-12-2011, 07:44 PM
With all due respect Major, aren't the same results (power vacuum, radical elements, etc.) inevitable with the current courses of action in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We do not have nor do I see coming a President or Congress that will take decisive actions to end our involvement in either of these countries. Neither do I see a political structure rising in either country that will be stable on its own without our continued presence.

Arabs and Muslims have been slaughtering each other for centuries in the ME. Under what circumstances using what rationale will the US ever hope to get them to stop short of repeating Dresden, Tokyo or Hiroshima?

Odysseus
04-13-2011, 12:17 AM
ROFL, You clicky'd the link, didn't you, Major? I should have warned you, but it's wikipedia. :p

~QC
Nope. The description was enough. Ugh...

With all due respect Major, aren't the same results (power vacuum, radical elements, etc.) inevitable with the current courses of action in Iraq and Afghanistan?

We do not have nor do I see coming a President or Congress that will take decisive actions to end our involvement in either of these countries. Neither do I see a political structure rising in either country that will be stable on its own without our continued presence.

Arabs and Muslims have been slaughtering each other for centuries in the ME. Under what circumstances using what rationale will the US ever hope to get them to stop short of repeating Dresden, Tokyo or Hiroshima?

Who said we had to stop short?

People stop fighting when they realize that they cannot win, and the thought of continuing is worse than surrendering. Dresden, Tokyo and Hiroshima ended up saving more lives in the long run, because the convinced our enemies that we could destroy them, and were willing to do it. Five minutes after the Taliban told us to pound sand when we demanded Bin Laden, we should have leveled Kabul, then followed that up with a repeat of the demand, followed by Kandahar if there was a second refusal.

We don't win wars by worrying about whether our enemies hate us. We win wars by ensuring that the hate is outweighed by their fear of us.

NJCardFan
04-13-2011, 06:02 AM
First things first. The Iraq War is over. Has been since 2004. Our objective was to oust a brutal regime. Mission accomplished right down to the fact that Saddam and his 2 equally bloodthirsty sons are now enjoying their 72 white raisins. That said, the ensuing occupation didn't go so well. Tribal pissing contests were bad enough but the even worst pissing contest between the Shiites and Sunni's has proven to be quite the mess. But, still, with Iran supplying the resistance with weapons and logistics, stabilizing Iraq has been a challenge but at least we're making headway. Afghanistan is a different problem. We kicked the Taliban out of power relatively easily. The problem arose when the government that ended up taking over was more corrupt than the Taliban were. Then with Democrats in power here, no one has the stones to fight a war the way it was meant to be fought. Too much attention is given to spare civilian lives even if said civilians are complicit in helping the enemy. Personally, if a civilian household was helping and abetting the enemy then that household is fair game to be reduced to burning cinders. But that's one man's opinion.

That said, both conflicts were gotten into with the best intentions but what happened is we overestimated the will of the people of those countries. Of course, having our own elected officials getting on national TV and telling the enemy that they are beating us doesn't help either. As long as we have Democrats willing to undermine out efforts, we will continue to fail.