Should We Get Out Of Afganistan?

Orius said:

I supported the war in Afghanistan until it unnecessarily bled into Iraq, then I saw the campaign for what it was. I saw genuine strategic and structural good in invading Afghanistan, but like with most Western campaigns, too many people saw dollar signs and power play opportunities with old foes, and the good was lost. Now we are just trying to maintain a status quo as Western nations withdraw one by one. Canada will be doing so in 2011.

I agree with GySgt when he says that Bin Laden is dead, and he probably has been for a while. The fact that it isn't being announced goes to show that the whole premise for the war was bogus. I'm not saying 9-11 was a conspiracy. It was a real event that provided a well timed pretext. That's all.

Click to expand...

And here it is people; the predictable beginning of what I knew would be the next effort after we withdrew from Iraq by those who have the simple notion that defending our freedoms, citizens and supporting our efforts to defeat our enemies comes at little or no cost.
This is merely the beginning of a predictable campaign by Liberal and Moderate passivists to make the argument to now abandon what they originally claimed were the "just" war. Now we see their true colors, they never actually support any use of troops to fight our enemies but rather, wish to give Osama Bin Laden the victory he claimed would be theirs by their commitment to the LONG term, something he knew the Western Nations and UN are incapable of and where he would win using public opinion.

The template for Osama was Vietnam; once again his predictions are correct and our inability to make the sacrifice necessary to support our beliefs, way of life and defend our citizens from it's enemies once more become evident to those bent on destroying us.

Again, this prevalent attitude among the worlds Democracies only serves as encouragement and a testimony of our inability to defend that which we rhetorically claim we believe in, but haven't the will to carry out.

Devil505 said:

Keep small mobile forces within striking range in safe, friendly places where we are wanted or at sea from aircraft carriers.

Click to expand...

You and others who suggest this naive strategy might want to look at a map of the region.

The notion that we can keep small mobile forces anywhere without nations that support our efforts requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Devil505 said:

Terrorists are like criminals....They will always be around. so let's fight them intelligently.

Click to expand...

This is the fallacy of the passivist mentality that is prevalent in Western nations today and the reason successful attacks like 9-11 can and will occur in the future.

Terrorists are not anything like criminals and the notion they are is a stunning statement in a vacuum of reality and the facts.

How ironic that you claim you want to fight them intelligently while completely failing to comprehend the nature of terrorists and claim they are like criminals.

Devil505 said:

You don't need to drop an A-bomb to kill a fly.

Click to expand...

This is a farcical analogy that cannot be supported by reality or the facts. But again, I am hardly surprised when it is coming from someone who is so obviously unaware of a global map of the region, thinks that we can maintain and sustain small mobile forces in nations that turn hostile and naively thinks that terrorists are like criminals.

The frightening part for me is not that people like you profess such naive notions, that is to be expected, but that we have a President that has the same naive farcical notions. :doh

Truth Detector said:

Once again you attempt to pretend that security and freedom can be obtained without cost. Even though I doubt many will get past the second paragraph, I will tell you what is now happening and why I am hardly surprised that now we debate whether the right war is worth the cost now.

Click to expand...

Stupid. "Not worth the cost". All this is dodge away from the fact that we done ****ed up. That people like you are pushing Americans to their deaths and trying to get the rest of us to **** our pants so we support you. Whatever. Forever war is not good, will never be good, will not take us to good places. That's all there is too it.

Orius said:

9-11 was a blip, mostly because the White House ignored all warning signs that an attack was imminent.

Click to expand...

No other statement illustrates the naive mental state of those who argue for withdrawal and naively think that 9-11 could have been prevented if only we had smarter politicians in charge (in other words, political philosophies they happen to agree with).

Of course, the facts to not support such foolhardy observations nor do they support the foolish strategic arguments made by the same people who have such nonsensical notions. Of course, having the collective memory of a magpie is a prerequisite to make such arguments as well.

The scary part is that the morons currently in charge of our Government think along the same lines and this is not only dangerous, but quite possibly will lead to another large loss of fellow citizens lives in the future.

Our enemies rightfully laugh at us and mock us for our foolish naive notions about their capabilities and desire to murder us and inability to sustain a long term commitment.

Truth Detector said:

And here it is people; the predictable beginning of what I knew would be the next effort after we withdrew from Iraq by those who have the simple notion that defending our freedoms, citizens and supporting our efforts to defeat our enemies comes at little or no cost.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the cost is non-sustainable, not that there is no cost. Are we prepared to go to war with every nation around Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban stays out of it? That's my point.

Truth Detector said:

This is merely the beginning of a predictable campaign by Liberal and Moderate passivists to make the argument to now abandon what they originally claimed were the "just" war.

Click to expand...

I do agree with you to some extent that liberal campaigns have made troop deployments less effective, but please do not accuse me of being a pacifist. Even though I prefer that wars not be waged, I tend to err on the side of structural realism when it comes to human conflict.

Truth Detector said:

Now we see their true colors, they never actually support any use of troops to fight our enemies but rather, wish to give Osama Bin Laden the victory he claimed would be theirs by their commitment to the LONG term, something he knew the Western Nations and UN are incapable of and where he would win using public opinion.

Click to expand...

Osama Bin Laden is more than likely already dead and the Al Qaeda network has been severely damaged since the start of the campaign. Places like Kabul and Kandahar have seen freedom as they haven't seen for more than half a century. Bush's stated mission was to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, I think we've accomplished a lot of that. We brought democracy to the region, trained its own security forces, and established bases for long term oversight.

Truth Detector said:

The template for Osama was Vietnam; once again his predictions are correct and our inability to make the sacrifice necessary to support our beliefs, way of life and defend our citizens from it's enemies once more become evident to those bent on destroying us.

Click to expand...

The stated mission for Afghanistan was to fight terrorism. Please tell me how we are going to eliminate all terrorism from the Middle East?

Truth Detector said:

Again, this prevalent attitude among the worlds Democracies only serves as encouragement and a testimony of our inability to defend that which we rhetorically claim we believe in, but haven't the will to carry out.

Click to expand...

Afghanistan may be a democracy on paper, but it is already voting in civil rights violations (according to our standard) left, right, and centre. The more recent bills passed supporting the domestic rape and imprisonment of women by their husbands is appalling.

What we are now defending is not a nation that wishes to be of our own making. We aren't defending its democracy, but rather our long term strategic and economic investment. Don't fool yourself into believing we are there for any other reason than our own interest.

Ikari said:

That people like you are pushing Americans to their deaths and trying to get the rest of us to **** our pants so we support you. Whatever. Forever war is not good, will never be good, will not take us to good places. That's all there is too it.

Click to expand...

Now you engage in empty headed hyperbolic rhetoric in lieu of engaging your brain. How absurd to suggest that anyone is push Americans to their deaths. It is as farcical as your claim of “forever war.” Yes they make cute naïve little talking points, but they lack in anything relevant or coherent in the debate.

I am not surprised that you didn’t spend on iota reading what I stated and merely selectively picked out something you could attack with your typical banal hyperbolic blather.

The following comments are an example of the wrong headed efforts we are now witnessing from the media and the naïve “community organizing mentality” current leaders of our Government:

Ikari said:

But all the freaking out about it is a bit much. 3,000 people is quite a bit, but more than that die each year from cars and I'm not supposed to freak out about that.

Click to expand...

Devil505 said:

Totally agree that 9/11 was so horribly successful (for the terrorists) due to mishandling by the Bush admin...bordering on dereliction of duty, imo.

Click to expand...

Orius said:

9-11 was a blip, mostly because the White House ignored all warning signs that an attack was imminent.

Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:

Now you engage in empty headed hyperbolic rhetoric in lieu of engaging your brain.

Click to expand...

I was trying to play you on an even playing field.

Truth Detector said:

How absurd to suggest that anyone is push Americans to their deaths. It is as farcical as your claim of “forever war.” Yes they make cute naïve little talking points, but they lack in anything relevant or coherent in the debate.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one supporting forever war

Truth Detector said:

I am not surprised that you didn’t spend on iota reading what I stated and merely selectively picked out something you could attack with your typical banal hyperbolic blather.

Click to expand...

What you write is normally pointless, hyperpartisan blather excusing the wars and asking for more. More money, more lives, we can't "fail" even though win and fail aren't defined nor is there a competent and realistic plan to get us to win.

Truth Detector said:

The following comments are an example of the wrong headed efforts we are now witnessing from the media and the naïve “community organizing mentality” current leaders of our Government:

Click to expand...

mine was truth. People freak out about terrorism and try to excuse war because of it, but it's a low probability event. Even the most successful attack took 3,000 people. More lives are spent on cars than terrorist attacks. Yet I'm not supposed to freak out over cars but I'm supposed to **** myself and blind myself to reality over terrorism. It doesn't make sense. We lost 3,000 civilians, then in war we more than doubled that number. We've put ourselves into horrible debt, there's still out of control spending, out of control wars, and no plan for success. Just throw money and lives at it forever it seems. Which is one of the dumbest "plans" ever for fighting a war. Do you purposefully take after Zapp Brannigan, or is it coincidental?

Orius said:

What I'm saying is that the cost is non-sustainable, not that there is no cost. Are we prepared to go to war with every nation around Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban stays out of it? That's my point.

I do agree with you to some extent that liberal campaigns have made troop deployments less effective, but please do not accuse me of being a pacifist. Even though I prefer that wars not be waged, I tend to err on the side of structural realism when it comes to human conflict.

Osama Bin Laden is more than likely already dead and the Al Qaeda network has been severely damaged since the start of the campaign. Places like Kabul and Kandahar have seen freedom as they haven't seen for more than half a century. Bush's stated mission was to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, I think we've accomplished a lot of that. We brought democracy to the region, trained its own security forces, and established bases for long term oversight.

The stated mission for Afghanistan was to fight terrorism. Please tell me how we are going to eliminate all terrorism from the Middle East?

Afghanistan may be a democracy on paper, but it is already voting in civil rights violations (according to our standard) left, right, and centre. The more recent bills passed supporting the domestic rape and imprisonment of women by their husbands is appalling.

What we are now defending is not a nation that wishes to be of our own making. We aren't defending its democracy, but rather our long term strategic and economic investment. Don't fool yourself into believing we are there for any other reason than our own interest.

Click to expand...

I am going to address a couple of your point’s then leave you with the last word because soon we will be entering into a never ending circle of futility:

Osama Bin Laden is more than likely already dead and the Al Qaeda network has been severely damaged since the start of the campaign

The problem with this idea is first and foremost, we don't know if Bin Laden is dead so conjecture suggesting he is and therefore we are done is beyond absurd.

In addition, such logic requires suspending disbelief in that there is not another Bin Laden to take the lead.

The real issue here is the farcical notion that this is JUST about Bin Laden and that terrorism will somehow cease with his death or capture.

Please tell me how we are going to eliminate all terrorism from the Middle East?

Re-read or read what I have already posted in response to this.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/55999-should-we-get-out-afganistan-13.html#post1058268671

Afghanistan may be a democracy on paper, but it is already voting in civil rights violations (according to our standard) left, right, and centre.

It took this nation over 200 years and a major civil war to establish a successful prosperous democracy; what makes people think that this can be done in the ME in two nations who have NEVER experienced democracy in a matter of years?

We aren't defending its democracy, but rather our long term strategic and economic investment.

This is patently false; there is nothing "strategic or economically beneficial to the US in Afghanistan. We are ONLY there because it had become a base for the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and contained a regime that sought to defend and protect terrorists.

Geographically, Afghanistan and areas in Pakistan have always been a convenient and safe place for basing terrorist operations and would revert back to those ways if we and the Pakistani government fail.

Truth Detector said:

The problem with this idea is first and foremost, we don't know if Bin Laden is dead so conjecture suggesting he is and therefore we are done is beyond absurd.

Click to expand...

Obviously the proof has not been made aware to the public, but when was the last time you heard Osama Bin Laden mentioned on the news or even in a White House press conference? He's dead. GySgt is right... it would make no sense to disclose that now because it would give the impression that the mission is over.

Truth Detector said:

In addition, such logic requires suspending disbelief in that there is not another Bin Laden to take the lead.

Click to expand...

Yes... and this ties into the forever war concept. You kill one, another replaces them.

Truth Detector said:

The real issue here is the farcical notion that this is JUST about Bin Laden and that terrorism will somehow cease with his death or capture.

Click to expand...

The idea that terrorism can be defeated, as if it's an objective target with finite resources, is just as farcical.

Truth Detector said:

It took this nation over 200 years and a major civil war to establish a successful prosperous democracy; what makes people think that this can be done in the ME in two nations who have NEVER experienced democracy in a matter of years?

Click to expand...

You are right, actually, about the civil rights front... it does take time.

However, the bolded part is not true of Afghanistan. Under Zahir Shah they experimented with it in the 60's, prior to the Soviet invasion.

Truth Detector said:

This is patently false; there is nothing "strategic or economically beneficial to the US in Afghanistan. We are ONLY there because it had become a base for the terrorist attacks on 9-11 and contained a regime that sought to defend and protect terrorists.

Click to expand...

The 9-11 attacks coincided with plans for the Middle East anyway. That's why they were so convenient for the Bush administration. I'm not saying at all that the WTC attack was orchestrated by the Bush admin, but it definitely helped their cause.

Afghanistan is a rich oil region and annexing it to the other oil allies, such as Iraq and Israel, provides sufficient territorial girth for the expansion of the pipeline. Please do a little bit of research... a pipeline is being constructed in Afghanistan as we speak. There were plenty of juicy infrastructure contracts given to the multi-national corporations following initial ground operations.

Truth Detector said:

Geographically, Afghanistan and areas in Pakistan have always been a convenient and safe place for basing terrorist operations and would revert back to those ways if we and the Pakistani government fail.

Click to expand...

I agree, but that's not the reason we are there. If it was simply about terrorism, there'd be plenty of targets around the world for our to invest our military might in. Think about the Darfur genocide. That made headlines all throughout the Bush admin years, yet no meaningful action was taken. So clearly it is not so much about humanitarianism and terrorism.

There have to be benefits for the U.S. to want to invest this many resources into an operation, and suffer the opportunity cost as well. Think about all that money that could be spent on the home front, or even in other foreign operations. The Middle East was chosen for specific reasons, and clearly a cost/benefit analysis has come into play. Even though lives are being lost and military dollars spent, someone at the top has decided that the benefit outweighs the cost. Geopolitically, the Middle East is extremely important, and resource wise it is abundant.

Catz Part Deux said:

Okay. As someone who has worked for government for almost my entire life, what I'd respond is that it's good that you are involved in expressing your views. However, you are not a professional in this field, and your views have no more weight than anyone else's.

Click to expand...

Well, I am. I disagree with you.

I've heard a lot of citizen input in the last 19 years in my field. The vast, overwhelming majority of it was uninformed by any research, experience, or understanding, and it was utterly unhelpful.

Click to expand...

It's not our fault that you've surrounded yourself with uneducated dummies.

Had I followed it, we'd have been even more clustered than we already were.

Click to expand...

No, sir, our situation is FUBAR now because we listened to the "experts".

Let the professionals do their jobs. I have slightly more confidence in their opinions than I do yours.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't. Really. You shouldn't.

OK, there are some things that need to be said on this thread.
Truths about 9/11:

The 9/11 terrorists did not prepare for the 9/11 attacks in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan by climbing on monkey bars, crawling under barbedwire and aimlessly firing AK-47s into the desert. They plotted 9/11 by researching weaknesses and antiquated hijack policies and procedures in the commercial travel industry in America. They used and abused the rediculous U.S. student visa and green card policies. They enrolled in an American flight school and trained to fly by day…and enjoyed Gentlemen’s clubs by night.

Those attacks were plotted over chai tea by organized criminals. Not over a campfire by battle-hardened insurgents.

If the leaders of this country were SERIOUS about battling terrorism and protecting our country, we would:
-Racially profile at U.S. airports and pressure other nations to do so.
-Deny visas to any Arab male aged 18-50 named Mohammed or something similar
-Protect our borders where they are vulnerable
-Secure our ports and conduct rigorous inspection of incoming cargo.
-See that the majority of our Homeland Security money goes to major target cities and landmarks.
-Continue warrantless wiretapping international phone calls from and to suspected terror suspects.
-Keep Guantanamo open and full.

But we won’t do these things because they aren’t politically correct or acceptable by some in power. They would rather send American boys to die in a wasteland that has absolutely no chance in hell of ever becoming a functioning democracy of any kind. The people in Afghanistan are cavemen. They are too far behind the times to understand what we are trying to do for them. Furthermore, we do not possess the resources, manpower, military capability or political will to truly secure that country and make it a functioning democracy, rid of all Islamic fanatics. Even if we did, it is an impossible task. None of this matters anyway, because a free and democratic Afghanistan does not mean we are safe from terrorists. They can just pick up and move. Like they did from Sudan to Afghanistan; they can and will move again. Will we follow them and bring democracy to the next country…and the next, and the next?

Nation-building in the name of protection from terror is a senseless strategy that will not work. The military isn’t designed for it and not particularly good at it. Bush was wrong to do it and Obama is wrong to keep doing it.

kansaswhig said:

OK, there are some things that need to be said on this thread.
Truths about 9/11:

The 9/11 terrorists did not prepare for the 9/11 attacks in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan by climbing on monkey bars, crawling under barbedwire and aimlessly firing AK-47s into the desert. They plotted 9/11 by researching weaknesses and antiquated hijack policies and procedures in the commercial travel industry in America. They used and abused the rediculous U.S. student visa and green card policies. They enrolled in an American flight school and trained to fly by day…and enjoyed Gentlemen’s clubs by night.

Those attacks were plotted over chai tea by organized criminals. Not over a campfire by battle-hardened insurgents.

If the leaders of this country were SERIOUS about battling terrorism and protecting our country, we would:
-Racially profile at U.S. airports and pressure other nations to do so.
-Deny visas to any Arab male aged 18-50 named Mohammed or something similar
-Protect our borders where they are vulnerable
-Secure our ports and conduct rigorous inspection of incoming cargo.
-See that the majority of our Homeland Security money goes to major target cities and landmarks.
-Continue warrantless wiretapping international phone calls from and to suspected terror suspects.
-Keep Guantanamo open and full.

But we won’t do these things because they aren’t politically correct or acceptable by some in power. They would rather send American boys to die in a wasteland that has absolutely no chance in hell of ever becoming a functioning democracy of any kind. The people in Afghanistan are cavemen. They are too far behind the times to understand what we are trying to do for them. Furthermore, we do not possess the resources, manpower, military capability or political will to truly secure that country and make it a functioning democracy, rid of all Islamic fanatics. Even if we did, it is an impossible task. None of this matters anyway, because a free and democratic Afghanistan does not mean we are safe from terrorists. They can just pick up and move. Like they did from Sudan to Afghanistan; they can and will move again. Will we follow them and bring democracy to the next country…and the next, and the next?

Nation-building in the name of protection from terror is a senseless strategy that will not work. The military isn’t designed for it and not particularly good at it. Bush was wrong to do it and Obama is wrong to keep doing it.

Click to expand...

I agree with some of your ideas & not with others. Your last sentence though.."Nation-building in the name of protection from terror is a senseless strategy that will not work. The military isn’t designed for it and not particularly good at it. Bush was wrong to do it and Obama is wrong to keep doing it."...Is absolutely right!
(actually I agree with everything you say after this.."But we won’t do these things because they aren’t politically correct or acceptable by some in power.

Devil505 said:

I think our continued presence in Afghanistan makes us less safe here at home.....

Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense. It never did no mater who was stating it.

In every single engagement around the world we have been involved in our enemies focused on the fight in their lands and at their door step. At no time did our enemies up and decide to fore sake the pressure in their face and come to America.

GySgt said:

This makes absolutely no sense. It never did no mater who was stating it.

In every single engagement around the world we have been involved in our enemies focused on the fight in their lands and at their door step. At no time did our enemies up and decide to fore sake the pressure in their face and come to America.

Click to expand...

Less safe because we are unnecessarily making more enemies for no gain.

Devil505 said:

Less safe because we are unnecessarily making more enemies for no gain.

Click to expand...

These radicals threaten everyone's peace, lives and property, even in their home countries. Their neighboring countries are also threatened. So you're saying that more radicals are made to hate us. They do anyway. They also will kill us because they think us no more than ants to step on. We are simply showing them that they are wrong.

LowRevs said:

These radicals threaten everyone's peace, lives and property, even in their home countries. Their neighboring countries are also threatened. So you're saying that more radicals are made to hate us. They do anyway. They also will kill us because they think us no more than ants to step on. We are simply showing them that they are wrong.

Click to expand...

But why is it our responsibility to act like the world's policemen?
We are simply broke now & can't be that cop anymore. You disagree?

Devil505 said:

But why is it our responsibility to act like the world's policemen?
We are simply broke now & can't be that cop anymore. You disagree?

Click to expand...

I agree with you totally on the policeman role. We should not volunteer our services to everyone that has a beef with someone else. However, these guys, al queda, attacked us and were headquartered in Afghanastan. We took it to them. You can't win by defense alone.

LowRevs said:

I agree with you totally on the policeman role. We should not volunteer our services to everyone that has a beef with someone else. However, these guys, al queda, attacked us and were headquartered in Afghanastan. We took it to them. You can't win by defense alone.

Click to expand...

OK...A reasonable excuse for going into Afghanistan when Al Quireda was there, but now they are in the tribal regions of Pakistan or scattered all over the place....so how do we "Win" by staying in Afghanistan & what is your definition of winning?

Devil505 said:

OK...A reasonable excuse for going into Afghanistan when Al Quireda was there, but now they are in the tribal regions of Pakistan or scattered all over the place....so how do we "Win" by staying in Afghanistan & what is your definition of winning?

Click to expand...

If we don't leave an Afghanistan that can police itself and protect its borders, It'll be all be for Schwartzneggar. They'll "be back"!

LowRevs said:

If we don't leave an Afghanistan that can police itself and protect its borders, It'll be all be for Schwartzneggar. They'll "be back"!

Click to expand...

Afghanistan has never had a strong central government or military. It is a conglomeration of local tribes & warlords so there never really was a chance of them being able to protect either themselves or their borders. Do we stay there forever? Increasingly against their will?

Devil505 said:

But why is it our responsibility to act like the world's policemen?
We are simply broke now & can't be that cop anymore. You disagree?

Click to expand...

Yes.

First of all, recognize history. It was the complete lack of a "parent" that sucked the world into global conflict twice. And during the Cold War, the world continued to need a "parent" to guard over the free world. We have never been the world's policeman and couldn't even if we wanted to be. There are far too many responsibilities and places to be for such a duty. What we have done has been regional managers of "stability" even at the cost of the local populations and all in the name of that great misleading word, "peace."

It is our responisibility because without us acting as that parent, millions of Americans have had to be tossed into Europe's messes and our blood stains their lands because of it.

Second, we are not "simply broke." We are far from it. The same doom sayers were spouting "broke" in the 80s. We are a proven beast of economy. Even now economists are calling an end to our recessions (far ahead of Europeans) and real estate is starting to show health again across the nation.

Third, we can't take on the responsibilities as we once did anymore because we are the ones that are blamed for everything that goes wrong, which encourages enemies. It doesn't matter that the world was made wrong by Europe. It doesn't matter that the Middle East is a product forst of internal bad decision making on their part and then of European "imperialism" and colonialism and then European imperialism again (Soviet Union). It doesn't matter that our activity in Iran had no consequence to the greater Arab Middle East. It doesn't matter that our support of Saddam Hussein against Khomeini was less than 5 percent in regards to what the Chinese, Russians, and the French did. In the end, we are left holding the bloody body bag. We are blamed for all the world's problems. We are blamed for our success and their failures. But the Cold War is ended. The Clinton administration worked throughout the 90s to ensure that Europe would no more burden us with their problems (WWI, WWII, Cold War). Bosnia and Kosovo was about forcing NATO in Europe to be more than a club. And this Islmaist terrorist problem is more of a European problem than it is for the "Great Satan" safely enough across the ocean.

If the rest of the world, which has been bennifactor to enough American sweat, treasure, and blood, cannot pull their own share of the burden (or at least acknowledge the mess they are responsible for) then maybe it is time for America to watch the world across the ocean burn itself up.

Of course, the global disaster has always managed to suck us in hasn't it? It has always demanded millions of American lives for their immediate good. Instead of complaining about the Vietnams, Koreas, Gulf Wars, Afghanistans, and Iraqs, maybe people should acknowledge that far greater American deaths have been spared over and over again. This idea that we "can't be the world's policeman" ensures the death of millions of Americans in the next global catastrophe (which will probably come out of Europe...again?).

History repeats itself often enough because people learn the wrong lessons. With the global babysitter, the world has been relatively without catastrophe.

GySgt said:

Yes.

First of all, recognize history. It was the complete lack of a "parent" that sucked the world into global conflict twice. And during the Cold War, the world continued to need a "parent" to guard over the free world.

Click to expand...

Then I demand a DNA test be performed on the "Baby" because I deny any paternal responsibility for it. Somebody is responsible for its birth your honor...but it wasn't me.....or you.

GySgt said:

Second, we are not "simply broke." We are far from it.

Click to expand...

Don't you watch Fox News or listen to the GOP? ...Obama is driving our economy right into the ground! The sky is actually falling!

GySgt said:

Third, we can't take on the responsibilities as we once did anymore because we are the ones that are blamed for everything that goes wrong, which encourages enemies.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. That's one reason why we need to leave Afghanistan.

GySgt said:

History repeats itself often enough because people learn the wrong lessons. With the global babysitter, the world has been relatively without catastrophe.

Click to expand...

But we can't afford to be that unpaid "Babysitter" anymore. The world will just have to stay home more often! The "Babysitter" is tired of babysitting for an adolescent teen who likes to smoke dope, break laws & drives drunk every day....& the cookies (left for the babysitter in the kitchen) are stale.