"End The Afghan War" Bill Introduced

Discussion in 'Politics' started by aaronman, Feb 18, 2011.

  1. Barbara Lee, Ron Paul float bill to end Afghanistan war - San Jose Mercury News


    This is a good test for your representative.
     
  2. Well, I would like to thank the Afghanis who supported us, while they still have their heads.
     
  3. Can't they take care of themselves?
     
  4. Good, hopefully it passes.
     
  5. Not really. Once we leave, all the progress we made in the ten years we were there will be washed away like sand castles on the beach.

    They certainly can try however the short spirited security forces without external support will be outnumbered and out gunned 1 to 20.

    They keep us in the dark about the true taliban strength and numbers. Its far more extensive than anyone can imagine.
     
  6. Between this and the PATRIOT Act vote you should have a pretty good feel on what your representative actually cares about.
     

  7. Progress such as...?

    Timeline of American involvement in Afghanistan:

    2001- invasion, killed thousands of people...hooorah
    2003 - invasion of Iraq, afghanistan put on back burner
    2009- we start focusing on AFghanistan again
    2010 - killed some more progress, err I mean brown people
    2011 - they all still think with a 10th century mindset... Taliban is strong as ever just laying low until Obama ends it
     

  8. When can we leave? Never? How long should we be the worlds police? Forever?

    So far the Iraq/Afghanistan US death toll is 5,913 and the tab is north of $1,000,000,000,000 (yes, that's a TRILLION - it would take you over 30,000 years counting 1 per second to reach that number btw).

    And let me ask you - are WE any safer? Keep in mind that our North and South borders are wide open...
     
  9. I just...I just can't find anything in this post that I can disagree with. Bumped for common sense.
     


  10. Lol yeah just go ahead and build yourself a berlin wall. The borders are open for a reason; it would pretty stupid to close them. Still, I do think that more security is needed there for everybody's safety.

    Also, Afghanistan is far from being capable or taking care of itself. You can't take everyone out of there at once, that would be incredibly stupid since the Taliban will just walk back in.

    Equality is still inexistant in the country, women are treated like slaves and aren't allowed to have jobs. The Afghani have also passed bills like allowing men to have forced sex with their wives, who are forced to beg for money everyday to feed their starving children and walk around in fuckin tents. In general, women have pretty gruesome lives.

    Another problem: Hamid Karzai. Not sure if you're aware but you DO know that the Taliban are funding his government; mosques schools, cash, etc. right? He's also totally anti-American, which sucks for you guys. There's also Iran to look at, they're the ones training the damn Taliban sending them into Afghanistan, while funding Karzai's government. They also have a nuclear program, and a psychopath of a president.

    So yeah, the middle east is in trouble, and while i'm sick of U.S. global policing, I still think there should be troops or peacekeepers in Afghanistan, because their people are hurtin' right now.


    Also to OP: good article, hadn't heard about this. Looking forward to seeing what happens..
     
  11. i couldnt agree with you more on the fact that our borders to the north, and possibly more importantly, to the south. Mexican drug cartels literally control the government just a few miles away from the US. Life is cheap down there, lots of people loose there lives. innocent people, as well as cops, and gang members. I guess the real question is should we be focusing our resources to prevent these gangs from taking over new territories in the US, or be worrying about some islamic radicals who are halfway across the world? Oppinions differ on this touchy subject but i think that we need to actually increase spending on boarder security to our south to combat the rising threat of mexican gangs. I also believe that the answer to your question of our we safer is YES. Remember 9/11. hasnt happened here since. Other nations have had terrorist attacks, but have we, NOPE. therefore we defintally are safer thanks to our increased spending on defense and department of homeland security. Also lets get around to your figures on US death tolls. You realize this war, at 10 years, is the longest ongoing war we have ever had(not including Cold war). Your figure of 5913 deaths over 10 years means that this war has had the 2nd least amount of casualties of any conflict in us history, and the lowest amount of casulties in a us war was the first iraq war. 5913 deaths is nothing compared to vietnam where we had 70,000. or korea, where it was like 50,000 something i believe. or in single days in WWII where hundreds of thousands died. your 5913 figure basically means that the war has been successful in terms of us casualties. and whereever u got that 1,000,000,000 figure of spending on the war from idk but if that is right its 100 billion a year, which is pretty much jack shit when it comes to the intire us yearly budget imho
     

  12. I will have to respectively disagree with most of what you've just said.

    Here are my reasons for doing so:
    - The founding fathers of this country preached a non-interventionist foreign policy, not American Imperialism around the globe.
    - One terrorist attack does not justify an open-ended war with three countries (Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan).
    - Because of 9/11 we have the wonderful USA PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security, NO THANK YOU.
    - 4,437 soldiers would still be alive today had we not waged war on a country that posed no national security threat to the USA (Iraq).
    - The USA should not have been involved in WWI, WWII, Korean War, or the Vietnam War in the first place.
    - Spreading ourselves thin militarily around the globe, as we have done over the past 10 years as you point out, allows for an attack to be more likely on home soil...not less.
    - Out of control spending and debt is a national security threat because eventually that WILL impact our military in a negative way.

    I'll leave you with a favorite quote of mine.

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin
     
  13. This is the only one I don't agree with, the only reasons I think a country should go to war is when another Country declares war on it which is what the Germans did to us at Pearl Harbor(Please someone get this joke), but besides that bravo sir.
     
  14. #15 mrgoodsmoke, Feb 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2011
    All of this happened because we were too chicken to just drop nuclear bombs after 9/11.
     
  15. its a great bill and i support it.

    ron paul 2012
     
  16. Instead of the dog and pony show we gave them after 9/11, we should have unleashed some really heavy pattern bombing in the mountains of Afghanistan, and near the Pakistani borders, where bin laden and his army fled to. We also could have nuked them, in those areas, and then denied that it was our doing. This would have been better than either doing nothing, or playing around with them for the past 9 1/2 years. Now that it's been discovered that they have all kinds of natural resources, China is trying to get a foothold in there, which would not be much good for anybody but China.
     
  17. ....

    I have to point out the utter ignorance and stupidity of this statement. Because to me, for a person whose family participated in both these tragedies, and for all the people killed and affected by these monumental events, it's disgustingly insulting.

    Please, someone give this guy a history lesson.
     

  18. Scroll up to my first point. American History is one of my favorite subjects actually.
     
  19. Still WWII though? I'd love to hear the reasoning behind that one. And no your first point does not automatically end that argument.
     

Share This Page