• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French troop pullout from Afghanistan to start in July

So your going to vote for Romney then? Just askin.

Why would I vote for Romney? He supported the war in Iraq, thought the president withdrew the troops to early from Iraq, thinks the president is withdrawing troops too soon from Afghanistan, and thinks we should increase spending on the military.
 
Why would I vote for Romney? He supported the war in Iraq, thought the president withdrew the troops to early from Iraq, thinks the president is withdrawing troops too soon from Afghanistan, and thinks we should increase spending on the military.

If you say so. if you have cable and get G4 TV look for a show called "Bomb Patrol in Afghanistan". The Obama administration has soldiers risking their lives picking up pressure plates from IED's to collect evidence instead of just blowing them up. What kind of jackass commander in chief do we have? Evidence, WTF are they going to do with it?
 
Last edited:
Our wars have been such a mess since the unconditional surrrenders of World War II because we have made the mistake of using our unprecedented power to add a streak of morality to our military action. Survival has always been about slaughter, not right and wrong.

The U.S. has historically pursued its interests and cloaked them in idealistic, moralistic, and legalistic language. Its idealistic, moralistic, and legalistic arguments aside, the U.S. had legitimate basis to enter various wars. Two examples are World Wars I and II. WW I and WW II both involved the likely overturning of the global balance of power that, if achieved, would have presented the U.S. with a clear and present danger. Furthermore, in WW II, the U.S. was attacked. The tendency to make moral causes a larger basis for war e.g., calls for the U.S. to use military force in the name of humanitarian principles, is of more recent origins. Ironically, some of its proponents view humanitarian wars as more ethical than wars based on interests, namely national security. I profoundly disagree. Only the latter rises to a level where survival could be undermined.

Survival has always been about survival. That the means to survive may well have required bloodshed does not automatically mean that warfare is the only means available for the pursuit of survival. In some cases, war is unavoidable and essential. In others, non-military applications can be effective. Too often, those non-military applications have been abandoned prematurely or not given adequate attention in recent years. In turn, the lack of emphasis on diplomacy has actually reduced confidence in diplomacy. Ineffective war outcomes have also eroded confidence in the nation's ability to use its vast power to achieve successful outcomes.

In the current post-9/11 era, that fundamental reality that war should be a last resort has not changed. Where a hostile or revolutionary state threatens the balance of power in a fashion that would pose a grave threat to U.S. interests and allies, the U.S. needs to be prepared to use force. Iran is a possible case in point, though alternatives involving tougher sanctions to establishing a deterrence regime need to be pursued well before war is even considered. Where political Islamist movements seek power, the situation must be judged carefully based on the character and context of those developments. Not every political Islamist movement poses a credible and imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies, even if some are hostile. The movements that do pose a credible and immiment threat are a subset. It's that subset that needs to be the focus of the nation's national security policy be it through covert action or other counterterrorism activities. Al Qaeda is an example of that subset. As had been the case prior to 9/11, war should remain a last resort.

Therefore, when it comes to civil conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, etc., where the nation's critical interests and allies e.g., the balance of power, are not threatened, the U.S. should stand aside. The U.S. can and should make its concern for the protection of civilians known. It should not use military force to try to bring about regime change, as it cannot seamlessly transplant functional institutional and political structures. Regime change would bring about a fresh need for nation-building. Attempting another nation-building project could only be time-consuming, costly, and frustrating, especially in an era of looming fiscal constraints.
 
If you say so. if you have cable and get G4 TV look for a show called "Bomb Patrol in Afghanistan". The Obama administration has soldiers risking their lives picking up pressure plates from IED's to collect evidence instead of just blowing them up. What kind of jackass commander in chief do we have? Evidence, WTF are they going to do with it?

He's no liberal if that's what you are trying to say. I was never under the illusion that he was. He is just better than the alternative, who is even more hawkish and wants to increase our spending on the military and optional wars that is already equal to almost as much as the rest of the world, COMBINED!

Romney didn't think the president should have withdrawn our troops from Iraq last year!
 
Last edited:
Well, you failed to make the case that he was dumber than the alternative.

Well maybe to you, but having solders in a war zone gather evidence as if it matters some how is still dumb as a bag of hammers to me.
 
Well maybe to you, but having solders in a war zone gather evidence as if it matters some how is still dumb as a bag of hammers to me.

To me supporting the war in Iraq where almost 5,000 died unnecessarily is a lot dumber.
 
To me supporting the war in Iraq where almost 5,000 died unnecessarily is a lot dumber.

I'm sure you mean equally as dumb. Obama could have had them out of Afghanistan by Sept 2009.
 
Obama could have had them out of Afghanistan by Sept 2009.

True, but Romney thinks Obama's schedule for withdrawal is too soon just as he thought was Obama's withdrawal from Iraq was too soon.

Like in 08, I will go with the least hawkish of the viable candidates.
 
True, but Romney thinks Obama's schedule for withdrawal is too soon just as he thought was Obama's withdrawal from Iraq was too soon. Like in 08, I will go with the least hawkish of the viable candidates.
I guess you have your choice. Live in tent cities with your less hawkish President. OR the economy recovering with the Congress having 19 more Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate. It doesn't matter whose President.
 
We have a corrupt puppet head in power elected via electoral fraud, nepotism, majority of Afghans dont support the gov, Taliban still a fighting force.
Mission complete?

I agree Obama's got to go.
 
I guess you have your choice. Live in tent cities with your less hawkish President. OR the economy recovering with the Congress having 19 more Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate. It doesn't matter whose President.

If I had not lived through the effects of 30 years of trickle down economics, financial deregulation and increased military spending, I might be able to swallow the very same proposals again from Romney.

But, I have, so I will not let that dog bite me again.
 
If I had not lived through the effects of 30 years of trickle down economics, financial deregulation and increased military spending, I might be able to swallow the very same proposals again from Romney.

But, I have, so I will not let that dog bite me again.

I went out on my own at age 21 in 1978. I struggled through the Carter fiasco and all I see in Jimmy Carter all over again in the White House now. Stagnant economy and jobs with inflation on the rise, only the depressed housing markets are keeping the inflation rate artificially low.
 
Your views are the same as the terrorists.

Historically, victory is often achieved by those who maintain a will to win. How much good American morality was applied to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did we choose morality or did we choose to win? And how about Dresden? How much morality went into achieving the goal to Berlin? I realize you protestors like to pretend that you can categorize the actions of the "Greatest Generation" differently that everything ever since and that you hold the key to morality as you really only preach the immorality of apathy, but I see through people like you. I choose to be blunt about reality. This makes people like you uncomfortable because it strips the fantasy of your reality away.

Numbers and technology count, but not always. Often enough, the will to win achieves victory after uphill climbs. Revolutions throughout history have gone up against superior organized military numbers and won. Insurgents have had episodes of victory in history over their oppressor establishments. Today's terrorists know what they want (though they feed you lies about what that is) and they absolutely have the will to achieve their goals (suicide bombs, IEDs, media spectacles). We haven't had the will to achieve our military goals since 1945 because we became powerful enough to play with the lives of our troops with no consequence to our civilization. We added tens of thousands of casualities to Korea, simply because for a year we applied our morality to the subject of repatriation while stripping oursleves of the morality to preserve life. This was a first in history, by the way. Fast forward to today and we see where the morality of "you break it, you bought it" has cost thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation 101 called for a heavier troop invasion to Iraq and temprary martial law after baghdad fell, but applying our sense of morality stripped the martial law capability away. In the end, this cost lives. We maintain our position in Afghanistan still because the morality of nation building has us in chains. The old British tactic of the "punitive strike" lacks a measure of morality, but it would save lives and treasure and is more in line with the protestor's bitching (showing a lack of morality).

We confuse our morality and we have a backwards way of applyng it. Somehow, according to the protestor, it was immoral to invade Iraq, but perfectly moral to continue starving them under the UN mission. It was perfectly moral to preserve our power for events in Europe (Bosnia/Kosovo), but perfectly moral to ignore events in Africa (Rwanda/Sudan). The tactic of hiding a lack of morality under false morality is beyond tired. It's a tactic used by all political parties. Only in this world does apathy and a lack of tactical vision equal good morality and the use of ancient international laws merely add to the illusion.

So, when I stated that "our morality needs to stay within our borders" it seems to have flown over your head. Your eagerness to think simply in order to insult doesn't serve you well. This is another aspect of how you haven't grown in the last few years over these matters. Despite everything that has been going on in the MENA you are hopelessly stuck to your complaining of February 2003.
 
Someone had suggested that a civilian should not have an opinion on military matters.

Did civilians **** up Vietnam or did the military?

Did the military **** up Iraq or did Rumsfeld?

Our greatest military achievements have come when civilians got the hell out of the way. How many civilians controlled the activity in the Pacific or in Europe? How about the Gulf War? Why did it take Patreaus to turn Iraq around and not Rumsfeld? What did these events have in common?

Now flip it. Do you want the military to assume control of American infrastructure? How about Generals dictating and forcing opinions upon governance or court systems? You wouldn't. So why do you believe a non-serving civillian injecting his opinion upon military practitioners a great thing? Would you tell your brain surgeon to move over because "you got it?" Why even have a general when a non-serving suit in Washington can do the job?

For that matter, what about cops? Did ATF agents **** up the southern border with the gun walking scandel or did civilians in Washington?

Practitionaers are often shoved aside by elected officials who think popularity gives them experience. Their sheep constituents make the same mistake.

This is just one more thing that makes your fantasy of reality uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
Historically, victory is often achieved by those who maintain a will to win. How much good American morality was applied to Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did we choose morality or did we choose to win? And how about Dresden? How much morality went into achieving the goal to Berlin? I realize you protestors like to pretend that you can categorize the actions of the "Greatest Generation" differently that everything ever since and that you hold the key to morality as you really only preach the immorality of apathy, but I see through people like you. I choose to be blunt about reality. This makes people like you uncomfortable because it strips the fantasy of your reality away.

Numbers and technology count, but not always. Often enough, the will to win achieves victory after uphill climbs. Revolutions throughout history have gone up against superior organized military numbers and won. Insurgents have had episodes of victory in history over their oppressor establishments. Today's terrorists know what they want (though they feed you lies about what that is) and they absolutely have the will to achieve their goals (suicide bombs, IEDs, media spectacles). We haven't had the will to achieve our military goals since 1945 because we became powerful enough to play with the lives of our troops with no consequence to our civilization. We added tens of thousands of casualities to Korea, simply because for a year we applied our morality to the subject of repatriation while stripping oursleves of the morality to preserve life. This was a first in history, by the way. Fast forward to today and we see where the morality of "you break it, you bought it" has cost thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Occupation 101 called for a heavier troop invasion to Iraq and temprary martial law after baghdad fell, but applying our sense of morality stripped the martial law capability away. In the end, this cost lives. We maintain our position in Afghanistan still because the morality of nation building has us in chains. The old British tactic of the "punitive strike" lacks a measure of morality, but it would save lives and treasure and is more in line with the protestor's bitching (showing a lack of morality).

We confuse our morality and we have a backwards way of applyng it. Somehow, according to the protestor, it was immoral to invade Iraq, but perfectly moral to continue starving them under the UN mission. It was perfectly moral to preserve our power for events in Europe (Bosnia/Kosovo), but perfectly moral to ignore events in Africa (Rwanda/Sudan). The tactic of hiding a lack of morality under false morality is beyond tired. It's a tactic used by all political parties. Only in this world does apathy and a lack of tactical vision equal good morality and the use of ancient international laws merely add to the illusion.

So, when I stated that "our morality needs to stay within our borders" it seems to have flown over your head. Your eagerness to think simply in order to insult doesn't serve you well. This is another aspect of how you haven't grown in the last few years over these matters. Despite everything that has been going on in the MENA you are hopelessly stuck to your complaining of February 2003.



Thanks for your opinions. I don't share them.
 
Did civilians **** up Vietnam or did the military?

Did the military **** up Iraq or did Rumsfeld?

Under civilian control, there is the possibility of self correction through elections or impeachments. Nixon was impeached during Vietnam, and the Republicans lost the presidency during the Iraq war.

Under authoritarian control self correction is not as likely.
 
True, but Romney thinks Obama's schedule for withdrawal is too soon just as he thought was Obama's withdrawal from Iraq was too soon.

Like in 08, I will go with the least hawkish of the viable candidates.

You think Romney is hawkish???

Romney is a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to get the nomination.
 
You think Romney is hawkish???

Romney is a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to get the nomination.

In comparison with the president, yes.

Obama opposed war in Iraq, Romney supported it.

Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq last year, Romney said it was too soon.

Obama is withdrawing troops from Afghanistan., Romney says it is too quick.

Obama has ordered cuts in military spending, Romney has pledged to increase military spending.
 
In comparison with the president, yes.

Obama opposed war in Iraq, Romney supported it.

Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq last year, Romney said it was too soon.

Obama is withdrawing troops from Afghanistan., Romney says it is too quick.

Obama has ordered cuts in military spending, Romney has pledged to increase military spending.

And how many of these were positions Romney took after he realized he was viewed as too liberal by conservative voters?

Did the Etch-A-Sketch comment go over your head?
 
And how many of these were positions Romney took after he realized he was viewed as too liberal by conservative voters?

Did the Etch-A-Sketch comment go over your head?

In that case he would be a ****ing idiot, as must have known there was a general election coming up. Either way he comes up on the short end.
 
In that case he would be a ****ing idiot, as must have known there was a general election coming up. Either way he comes up on the short end.


Doubtful that you would be one that pulled a lever for Romney in any case, so why should your opinion matter any more than that of a fart in the wind?


j-mac
 
Thanks for your opinions. I don't share them.

You don't share them because you have spent too long shaping reality to fit the opinions you need to have. Look at the world for what it is and not how you want it to be and you would find that your opinions contradict. Your self-appointed chair of conscience has tied the idea of good morality to international law, which serves to protect "stability" at all costs. The idea that genocide and civilian slaughter, contained within a soveriegn border, is acceptable because international law allows for the apathy of greater nations who pick and choose when to apply morality. The truth is that our morality is tied up in our interests.

This is why preserving Europe's stability by addressing "Yugoslavia" mattered and the "stability" of the African region (concerning Rwanda or Sudan) did not. And do you know why Bosnia was labeled a genocide by the UN and Rwanda was not? It's because international law commands that Western nations, especially the U.S., must act. How did you define your morality here? And how much of our trades/economic interests would have been threatened if Hitler had kept the Holocaust merely behind soveriegn German borders?

And how quick are you to flog America for supporting dictators during the Cold War even though it served the UN international mission of "stability?" Today, you preach about how instable the region is without those dictators. How are you reconciling your idea of morality and international law evenly from one era to another?

It is a myth that law equals morality. Laws serve to organize people. The Rule of Law offers guidance. In the end it allows people to shelve good morality. It allows people to be lazy. Ask any judge how much work goes into his job. He merely relies on the efforts of the past (precedence) and he lazily makes decisions to close dockets. Justice and good morality often doesn't even come in to play. International law offers the same thing to governments. This is why powerful governments of goodwill can point at "white" Bosnia and not at "black" Rwanda. The law allows it. So where's the morality?

Martial Law inside Iraq for the first six months would have saved lives. But the stigma of martial law makes people uncomfortable so they tie the topic to a false sense of morality as the streets run with blood. The streets run with blood in Syria right now, but powerful nations of goodwill have allowed Russia and China (through international law) to dictate morality just to preserve the "stability" of their Syrian business partners.

And the greatest contradiction of all is how we overlook (or forgive victory) the attocities of the past and have set the bar with the Greatest Generation. The Greatest Generation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian cities. They fire bombed Dressdan on the way to Berlin. Marines in the Pacific followed the lessons they learned from the Japanese at Guadel Canal and rarely took prisoners. Despite the mass slaughter of civilians this generation is awarded the title of "Greatness." Today, we chose to villify and demonize ourselves for three watreboarding cases and a frat party incident at Abu Ghraib. Certainly something to concern ourselves with, but hardly worth the depraved illogical criticisms that tidal waved into this generation. Perhaps we should have just dropped a couple nuclear bombs on a couple cities instead or rounded up Muslim citizens into containment camps.

We have become a people that greatly attach our morality to the opinions of the world. The same world that needed saving three times in the 21st century because of their knack for genocide, devisation, and Leftist ideologies. The reason we were the ones that did the saving is not simply because we have two oceans separating us from the old world. It is because our greater sense of right and wrong went against the grain of the world. We stood on the outside of their world and injected it with what we used to be. Today, we have lost our way. Today, we choose to preserve the monarchies (dictators) instead of overthrowing them. Today, we enslave ourselves to outdated international laws to satisfy our own selfish apathies with the guise of morality as our guide. We think simply and criticize all measures to focus of long term tactics in order to deal with the world because short term temporary tactics are easier to understand. We have a media that focuses on criticism (not truth) to satisfy people's cynism who follow mindlessly behind the politician that say's "Hey stupid, follow me."

I find that most of today's problem (for the American people) is that they are clueless to their history and of the big picture missions that have been undertaken for the last two hundred years. We have trained ourselves through improper academics to focus on Germany, not Europe - to focus on Japan, not the Pacific - to focus on Korea and Vietnam not the Cold War. And the Gulf War had everything to do with only Kuwait, right? We proved that America can play in the global gutter, come home, and carry on with our high values and morality. But we lost our way over the last few decades. Today, we prove that we can't play in the global gutter properly because we apply a haphazard idea of morality to the world that the world rejects. We wind up making our efforts more difficult because we are afraid of our image, despite not dropping a nuclear bomb since the "Greatest Generation" saved our loudest critics and keeping the world from another catastrophe ever since.

We are a confused people because we assume to be able to have morality while following international law. This is fine for the rest of the world who needs a League of nations or a United Nations to force them behave. But it is not fine for us and this is why we struggle with words like "soveriegn," "stability," "morality." We truly are a nation of goodwill that may have the capability of recognizing past mistakes and the ability to shift society to erase repeat, but we screw up everytime we try to push that morality across the oceans.

History is clear. Base your opinions on truth, not the Leftist fantasy of humanity and reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom