should the troops be brought home

ok. i am the first to admit i am politically not well informed.. but after this last attack by the taliban that shot down the helocopter.. i am really feeling as though we should withdraw all our troops.. the afghans and people over in that desert dont want us there. i personally feel that our troops should be at home protecting our borders. help enforce all the illegal crossing that goes on and defend our home turf from the camel jockeys that are so hell bent on destroying us.. it seems that all that is really happening is our troops and the troops of other countries are just being killed by these thugs that just dont care.. again this may be pandoras box i am opening but the events of this weekend have been to me the kinda nail in the coffin os far as this goes.

chris

Firstly, I'm not sure, but I've been wondering that same question.

To me it's the flip sided question of: What will we gain by staying there? What will it cost us?

against: What will we gain by leaving? What will it cost us?

By staying, it seems like we could gain some measure of stability in a vital region. I'm not sure if we'll ever be able to achieve lasting stability, or if we're just succeeding in keeping people too busy fighting us to want to kill each other. Staying obviously costs a lot of money, and quite a few lives. It's unclear if it's also increasing animosity towards the U.S. or not.

If we leave, we obviously save a lot of money and lives. But if we pull out with the job "half finished" do we just breed animosity of people who hate us even more.

I don't know. Doesn't seem like anyone does. I really wish there were some seriously intelligent people who really understand the situation who could/would tell us honestly: Can we win? What will it cost?

Yes. Ask Ron Paul. Pulling out is difficult, but it needs to be done to prevent it from getting worse.

Staying out of political threads...nothing but danger coming

Grtechguy wrote: Staying out of political threads...nothing but danger coming

It's sort of like watching a train wreck live though, with your own eyes. This outta be good!

What I am curious about is, how much more dangerous would it be for the US if they pulled out? For realz, there is this BIG BODY OF WATER seperating you guys and everyone else, which basically requires planes.

If the people want their hell hole to be a hell hole, then let it. If they kill each other off, you can just go in for the oil afterwards anyways and lay claim I keed!

In a perfect world we wouldn't need troops.

If we pursued a more isolationist attitude we'd have more money to spend at home, but would we have a home long?

Didn't you ever play cowboys and indians or some other sort of hunter seeker game as a kid? You definitely didn't leave your protagonists alone long to formulate plans and if there was more than one team you were playing against you didn't leave them alone because they'd team up against you.

If kids are smart enough to do it what do you think would happen with trained soldiers?

I love the idea of an isolationist policy, but I don't think it would work.

Yes. Not just from Afghanistan and Iraq, but all other overseas troops. Bring home the 30,00 men and women we still have standing at the fenceline in Korea, bring home the troops stationed in Germany that are there to hold off the Soviet tanks that might come rolling across the border at anytime.

Bring them all home. I do support the concept of sea power, so I wouldn't want to stop naval deployments.

It is called the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

Datsun1500 said:Maybe I am different but I don't think they need to come home, just yet. I think we need to declare it a war, go in strong, and finish it. The political correctness is what is costing us. This could be over in 2 months. When the bombing does not stop and the civilians start to see casualties they will stop hiding the bad guys. .

Agreed

In reply to carguy123:

Not invading or occupying other countries is not isolationism.

T.J. wrote: In reply to carguy123: Not invading or occupying other countries is not isolationism.

Not interfering in their politics or taking sides is isolationism. If you practice isolationism you won't have troops anywhere except where you are defending your soil.

And that's the problem, we'd be fighting the "enemies" on our soil, not theirs.

Datsun1500 wrote: Maybe I am different but I don't think they need to come home. I think we need to declare it a war, go in strong, and finish it. The political correctness is what is costing us. This could be over in 2 months.

We have been practicing political correct war since the 50s.. it hasn't gotten us very far

Datsun1500 wrote: When the bombing does not stop and the civilians start to see casualties they will stop hiding the bad guys.

There's a lot I don't know about the situation but I think the civilians have already started seeing casualties. Apologies for citing Wikipedia.

yes

mad_machine wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Maybe I am different but I don't think they need to come home. I think we need to declare it a war, go in strong, and finish it. The political correctness is what is costing us. This could be over in 2 months.

We have been practicing political correct war since the 50s.. it hasn't gotten us very far

Neither the Russians nor Imperial Britain had many compunctions about politically correct war. They had less technology, but a lot more expendable bodies to throw around.

It didn't get them very far.

Salanis wrote:

mad_machine wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: Maybe I am different but I don't think they need to come home. I think we need to declare it a war, go in strong, and finish it. The political correctness is what is costing us. This could be over in 2 months.

We have been practicing political correct war since the 50s.. it hasn't gotten us very far

Neither the Russians nor Imperial Britain had many compunctions about politically correct war. They had less technology, but a lot more expendable bodies to throw around. It didn't get them very far.

You're kidding Imperial Britain didn't get very far? What left-coast, revisionist history did you learn in school?

pull them out.. we're gonna need the troops here to get control of the race riots that are popping up around the country..

novaderrik wrote: pull them out.. we're gonna need the troops here to get control of the financial riots that are popping up around the country..

Fixed it for you.

Osterkraut wrote: You're kidding Imperial Britain didn't get very far? What left-coast, revisionist history did you learn in school?

Specifically as it relates to Afghanistan, not particularly. They tried twice. Faired poorly the first time and the second had a lot of economic influence, but decided to not even bother trying to occupy it with soldiers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasions_of_Afghanistan

Afghanistan is one of those places that everyone invades and has a terrible time with.

carguy123 wrote:

novaderrik wrote: pull them out.. we're gonna need the troops here to get control of the financial riots that are popping up around the country..

Fixed it for you.

nope. i had it right the first time.

Those who won't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Do you guys remember a fellow by the name of Hitler. It seems that America was in it's isolationist stage and refused to take sides or help anyone out. They said things like "He'll burn out and go away." or "Things can't really be all that bad." "Jew problem? What Jew problem?"

One of the loudest isolationist was another chap you may have heard of called Will Rogers. You know Will, he was the opening act for Roosevelt's Fireside Chats. He preached continually about the evils of getting involved in anyone else's business and would have been on the most vocal advocates of bringing the troops home - regardless. Poor old Will died before he could admit he was wrong.

Well we all know how that little frakus turned out.

Read up on how well our goodwill ambassador to Germany worked out. How his daughter was sleeping with the heads of several of the high commands. I forget which ones now, but I know death heads and swastikas were involved. See how he downplayed every German incident, especially those against Americans because he was afraid Germany wouldn't pay back the money they owed us from WW1. And no they never did pay us back.

Had the US been a factor Hitler wouldn't have tried what he tried when he tried it. And that's according to documents gathered after the war.

So while down deep I wish we could forget the rest of the world it's been proven to me that's not a wise course of action.

Salanis wrote: Afghanistan is one of those places that everyone invades and has a terrible time with.

Arabic Muslims seem to have done a pretty good job.

carguy123 wrote: Do you guys remember a fellow by the name of Hitler.

That didn't take long.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Low-blow, Eddie.

That Denver air thinner than usual tonight?

Really? I thought I was being light hearted and playful. Oh well.

It's kinda like when I'm looking at Nazi porn... Damn it.