No Good Ever Came From A Protracted War

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:
I agree...we are in a mess. The statement"we could cut our military budget in half and still have the most powerful military in the world" is subjective. 600 million Chinese might not think so. While it's true that if we cut military spending in half, we would still be spending more money, and be better equipped, and have a technological advantage, that doesn't automatically equate too most powerful.

As I said earlier, even if we could cut military spending to the bone, we'd have a lot farther to go. And now that people are used too them, cutting pensions and social programs would be tougher than cutting military spending.

quote:

Originally posted by paw-paw:
Thank you Seaweed. I could not have stated it any better.
And, I think the "fighting terroism" banner is one of the most over-used slogans of all. What have we accomplished in the fight against terroism? We been there for almost TEN years. Hell, we beat Germany and Japan both in less than 5 years. But, if I suggest we withdraw from Iraq and Agganistan I am accused of not supporting the "fight against terroism". I just want to see our country survive. Can the bad guys not just walk across the Mexican-US border? And to Shoals, no I don't have a plan that I know would work, although I do have a few ideas. Like fighting fire with fire. Precise surgical strikes could take out a training site in hours. Don't let 'um fool you. Our government knows if a rooster scratches his butt in one of those countries. Anyway, someone better come up with an answer quick or we will be in complete financial collapse. I also, like the idea stated above. Just pack up and leave. What they gonna' do? Either that or just annex both countries and TAKE the oil. That's what this is all about anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by tigrtrek:

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Thus said Sun Tzu.

Do you agree or disagree with this: The reason why we are heavily taxed, underserved, and cannot afford Universal health care (regardless of its merit/non-merits) is because we spend way too much on our military.

The USA spends as much on military as the rest of the industrialized world.

It cannot continue.

Strongly disagree.

The question is..."is military spending the reason we can't afford universal healthcare". No.

Does defense spending need to be cut? Yes, but that is far, far, far from a cure for our financial woes.A lot of people believe the myth that if we cut military spending, we'd be flush with cash. That's just not true. We could cut our military spending by 90% and still go 750 billion dollars in the hole...this year.

Would we be better off if we hadn't got involved in a war in the Middle East? Sure. But that is far from the reason we are heavily taxed and can't afford universal healthcare. If we would have cut military spending in half for the last nine years and not been at war in the Middle East we'd be only be nine trillion dollars in debt instead of thirteen. Placing the blame for our financial predicament on war and the military, while it makes for a good soundbite, it's far from true. But as with most things political...one doesn't have to tell the truth as long as it sounds good.

Excellent point, mid, and I stand partially corrected.

Excessive military spending is ONE of the reasons, however.

A reckoning is coming, and it will not be of our choice or at a time of our choosing. A trillion here, a trillion there, it adds up.

We can only hope that in November we elect a gaggle of born-again fiscal conservatives who can do arithmetic. Yeah, I know. It's asking too much.

I would say the reckoning comes when the world economic situation become clearer. Right now US bond yields are low and our treasuries are in demand. That's not because we are in good shape. More like the US is the least ugly girl at the dance. When we cease to be such watch out.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:
I agree...we are in a mess. The statement"we could cut our military budget in half and still have the most powerful military in the world" is subjective. 600 million Chinese might not think so. While it's true that if we cut military spending in half, we would still be spending more money, and be better equipped, and have a technological advantage, that doesn't automatically equate too most powerful.

As I said earlier, even if we could cut military spending to the bone, we'd have a lot farther to go. And now that people are used too them, cutting pensions and social programs would be tougher than cutting military spending.

Mid,

How could 600 million anybody cross the ocean and get here if we didn't want them to?

Heck, we have an invasion of 15 Million Mexicans, and we're just now getting to the do it/don't do it line. OK, most of the Mexicans are not hostile to us, so accuse of me a poor analogy, but you get the point.

We and China are not going to war any time soon. Neither are we going to war with Mexico.

With whom are we going to war?

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:
I agree...we are in a mess. The statement"we could cut our military budget in half and still have the most powerful military in the world" is subjective. 600 million Chinese might not think so. While it's true that if we cut military spending in half, we would still be spending more money, and be better equipped, and have a technological advantage, that doesn't automatically equate too most powerful.

As I said earlier, even if we could cut military spending to the bone, we'd have a lot farther to go. And now that people are used too them, cutting pensions and social programs would be tougher than cutting military spending.

Mid,

How could 600 million anybody cross the ocean and get here if we didn't want them to?

Heck, we have an invasion of 15 Million Mexicans, and we're just now getting to the do it/don't do it line. OK, most of the Mexicans are not hostile to us, so accuse of me a poor analogy, but you get the point.

We and China are not going to war any time soon. Neither are we going to war with Mexico.

With whom are we going to war?

No one hopefully...unless we fight over the remaining oil.

I don't pretend too know the logistics that would be involved...and we may never find out. I don't think we'll be at war with anyone in the near future. Besides the Chinese may just buy us. My point was that right now the great majority of the nations of the world consider the U.S. too be the last remaining super-power with the most powerful military in the world. If we cut our military budget in half, I feel sure that viewpoint would change for some. Whether they would be right or wrong, I don't know and I hope we never find out, but I'm sure it would sway some opinions.

I'm not a hawk that thinks spending above our means is ok if it's for the military. Spending more than we have is not ok for any reason. We've been living above our means for many years, but it's not because we would rather have more missiles. The notion that if we would just cut from the military portion of the budget everything would be ok, besides being terrible for our economy, is ludicrous. Military spending alone didn't get us in this hole and cutting military spending alone is not going too get us out.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?

Good grief--that old dead notion coming up again--that if we don't fight
'em in Iraq or Afghanistan, the A-rabs will come swarming over here to our shores to do us damage. Bullfeathers to that nutty notion. They are not inhibited from coming to this country and doing us damage because we decided to go buccaneering away in two backward Islamic countries. They are not getting in and doing damage to us because--we are told--the astonishingly effective homeland security systems put in place during 8 years of the Bush maladministration have been phenomenally effective! Do you really think those highly-touted, near-miraculous systems would become less effective if we pulled out of those two nations and left it to their the citizens to decide their own fates?

It was the U.S invasion of Iraq IN IRAQ and the U.S invasion of Afghanistan IN AFGHANISTAN that energized the fires of Islamic righteousness in the breasts of Muslims within those nations and those from other Islamic nations who came into Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their Islamic brethren from "western imperialism." If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably.
But they did not commandeer ships or planes and head full speed for our shores. They went to those places on the globe where GWD and DC and DR decided we somehow needed to go to hold back the islamic menace. Then, once we got into Afghanistan and whupped some Taliban butt, and had that particular Islamic menace on the run, we pulled out most of our forces and deployed them to whup up on Saddam and interdict those weapons of mass destruction that never were.
We botched things in both countries and have stayed around botching up things even more, but in the meantime, no A-rabs have been able to do any more mischief on our shores than the hapless Christmas day undies-bombing incompetent who succeeded only in scorching his own crotch! And all this during a time when we have given the 20 million or so of wildly-extremist, America-hating Islamic fanatics as much inspiration as we possibly could to come on and git us if they can!

You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that the puissance of the Bush homeland security program has given this nation a virtually impenetrable and astonishingly effective defense against Islamic terrorism and at the same time argue that we must continue to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to keep these evil devils at bay.

quote:

Both the House and Senate approved initial versions of the war spending legislation. But after the first Senate bill, the House tacked on dozens of extra, domestic spending programs which hiked the bill's price tag.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:

quote:

Originally posted by midknightrider:
I agree...we are in a mess. The statement"we could cut our military budget in half and still have the most powerful military in the world" is subjective. 600 million Chinese might not think so. While it's true that if we cut military spending in half, we would still be spending more money, and be better equipped, and have a technological advantage, that doesn't automatically equate too most powerful.

As I said earlier, even if we could cut military spending to the bone, we'd have a lot farther to go. And now that people are used too them, cutting pensions and social programs would be tougher than cutting military spending.

Mid,

How could 600 million anybody cross the ocean and get here if we didn't want them to?

Heck, we have an invasion of 15 Million Mexicans, and we're just now getting to the do it/don't do it line. OK, most of the Mexicans are not hostile to us, so accuse of me a poor analogy, but you get the point.

We and China are not going to war any time soon. Neither are we going to war with Mexico.

With whom are we going to war?

No one hopefully...unless we fight over the remaining oil.

I don't pretend too know the logistics that would be involved...and we may never find out. I don't think we'll be at war with anyone in the near future. Besides the Chinese may just buy us. My point was that right now the great majority of the nations of the world consider the U.S. too be the last remaining super-power with the most powerful military in the world. If we cut our military budget in half, I feel sure that viewpoint would change for some. Whether they would be right or wrong, I don't know and I hope we never find out, but I'm sure it would sway some opinions.

I'm not a hawk that thinks spending above our means is ok if it's for the military. Spending more than we have is not ok for any reason. We've been living above our means for many years, but it's not because we would rather have more missiles. The notion that if we would just cut from the military portion of the budget everything would be ok, besides being terrible for our economy, is ludicrous. Military spending alone didn't get us in this hole and cutting military spending alone is not going too get us out.

Maybe a good place to start would be to close a lot of those overseas bases like Okinawa - the war is over, John Wayne left, why do we need to be there ? Thankfully, Obama is stopping development of that next generation fighter that was/is costing a fortune. How many more carriers do we need, how many more subs ? Just came out we don't eve know how many people are working on covert operations- both government employees and contractors, so that beggs the question, how many do we need ?

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?

Good grief--that old dead notion coming up again--that if we don't fight
'em in Iraq or Afghanistan, the A-rabs will come swarming over here to our shores to do us damage. Bullfeathers to that nutty notion. They are not inhibited from coming to this country and doing us damage because we decided to go buccaneering away in two backward Islamic countries. They are not getting in and doing damage to us because--we are told--the astonishingly effective homeland security systems put in place during 8 years of the Bush maladministration have been phenomenally effective! Do you really think those highly-touted, near-miraculous systems would become less effective if we pulled out of those two nations and left it to their the citizens to decide their own fates?

It was the U.S invasion of Iraq IN IRAQ and the U.S invasion of Afghanistan IN AFGHANISTAN that energized the fires of Islamic righteousness in the breasts of Muslims within those nations and those from other Islamic nations who came into Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their Islamic brethren from "western imperialism." If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably.
But they did not commandeer ships or planes and head full speed for our shores. They went to those places on the globe where GWD and DC and DR decided we somehow needed to go to hold back the islamic menace. Then, once we got into Afghanistan and whupped some Taliban butt, and had that particular Islamic menace on the run, we pulled out most of our forces and deployed them to whup up on Saddam and interdict those weapons of mass destruction that never were.
We botched things in both countries and have stayed around botching up things even more, but in the meantime, no A-rabs have been able to do any more mischief on our shores than the hapless Christmas day undies-bombing incompetent who succeeded only in scorching his own crotch! And all this during a time when we have given the 20 million or so of wildly-extremist, America-hating Islamic fanatics as much inspiration as we possibly could to come on and git us if they can!

You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that the puissance of the Bush homeland security program has given this nation a virtually impenetrable and astonishingly effective defense against Islamic terrorism and at the same time argue that we must continue to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to keep these evil devils at bay.

You nailed it, beternU!!!

We have got to get out of the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's why we're hated and that's why they dig in and fight. How do some of you not understand that?

I'm tired of the because-we're-America-we-must-conquer-and-win bravado bs. What we must do is concentrate on our own needs for a change.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
We'll never influence Afghanistan to adopt a democratic government. They don't want it, they don't understand it, it's contrary to their earnest religion, it's not gonna happen.

I think the thing to do is leave them to their own Hell, and punish them by ten times their transgressions onto us, if they should ever be so foolish again.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
My dear Elint,

It's going to happen regardless. Money that we are sending to Pakistan now is finding its way into Taliban hands. We're paying them to kill our soldiers.

We can't punish them by insisting they accept democracy. It's a futile waste of time and money, and that plays into the Taliban's hands.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?

Good grief--that old dead notion coming up again--that if we don't fight
'em in Iraq or Afghanistan, the A-rabs will come swarming over here to our shores to do us damage. Bullfeathers to that nutty notion. They are not inhibited from coming to this country and doing us damage because we decided to go buccaneering away in two backward Islamic countries. They are not getting in and doing damage to us because--we are told--the astonishingly effective homeland security systems put in place during 8 years of the Bush maladministration have been phenomenally effective! Do you really think those highly-touted, near-miraculous systems would become less effective if we pulled out of those two nations and left it to their the citizens to decide their own fates?

It was the U.S invasion of Iraq IN IRAQ and the U.S invasion of Afghanistan IN AFGHANISTAN that energized the fires of Islamic righteousness in the breasts of Muslims within those nations and those from other Islamic nations who came into Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their Islamic brethren from "western imperialism." If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably.
But they did not commandeer ships or planes and head full speed for our shores. They went to those places on the globe where GWD and DC and DR decided we somehow needed to go to hold back the islamic menace. Then, once we got into Afghanistan and whupped some Taliban butt, and had that particular Islamic menace on the run, we pulled out most of our forces and deployed them to whup up on Saddam and interdict those weapons of mass destruction that never were.
We botched things in both countries and have stayed around botching up things even more, but in the meantime, no A-rabs have been able to do any more mischief on our shores than the hapless Christmas day undies-bombing incompetent who succeeded only in scorching his own crotch! And all this during a time when we have given the 20 million or so of wildly-extremist, America-hating Islamic fanatics as much inspiration as we possibly could to come on and git us if they can!

You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that the puissance of the Bush homeland security program has given this nation a virtually impenetrable and astonishingly effective defense against Islamic terrorism and at the same time argue that we must continue to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to keep these evil devils at bay.

You nailed it, beternU!!!

We have got to get out of the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's why we're hated and that's why they dig in and fight. How do some of you not understand that?

I'm tired of the because-we're-America-we-must-conquer-and-win bravado bs. What we must do is concentrate on our own needs for a change.

"If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably."

I realize in the regressive alternate universe that 9/11 never happened, or was Bush's fault. However, in our universe, the US was pulling out of Saudi Arabia and saved thousands of Muslims lives in Europe and Kuwait. We were attacked, nevertheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?

Good grief--that old dead notion coming up again--that if we don't fight
'em in Iraq or Afghanistan, the A-rabs will come swarming over here to our shores to do us damage. Bullfeathers to that nutty notion. They are not inhibited from coming to this country and doing us damage because we decided to go buccaneering away in two backward Islamic countries. They are not getting in and doing damage to us because--we are told--the astonishingly effective homeland security systems put in place during 8 years of the Bush maladministration have been phenomenally effective! Do you really think those highly-touted, near-miraculous systems would become less effective if we pulled out of those two nations and left it to their the citizens to decide their own fates?

It was the U.S invasion of Iraq IN IRAQ and the U.S invasion of Afghanistan IN AFGHANISTAN that energized the fires of Islamic righteousness in the breasts of Muslims within those nations and those from other Islamic nations who came into Iraq and Afghanistan to defend their Islamic brethren from "western imperialism." If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably.
But they did not commandeer ships or planes and head full speed for our shores. They went to those places on the globe where GWD and DC and DR decided we somehow needed to go to hold back the islamic menace. Then, once we got into Afghanistan and whupped some Taliban butt, and had that particular Islamic menace on the run, we pulled out most of our forces and deployed them to whup up on Saddam and interdict those weapons of mass destruction that never were.
We botched things in both countries and have stayed around botching up things even more, but in the meantime, no A-rabs have been able to do any more mischief on our shores than the hapless Christmas day undies-bombing incompetent who succeeded only in scorching his own crotch! And all this during a time when we have given the 20 million or so of wildly-extremist, America-hating Islamic fanatics as much inspiration as we possibly could to come on and git us if they can!

You can not have it both ways. You can not argue that the puissance of the Bush homeland security program has given this nation a virtually impenetrable and astonishingly effective defense against Islamic terrorism and at the same time argue that we must continue to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to keep these evil devils at bay.

You nailed it, beternU!!!

We have got to get out of the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's why we're hated and that's why they dig in and fight. How do some of you not understand that?

I'm tired of the because-we're-America-we-must-conquer-and-win bravado bs. What we must do is concentrate on our own needs for a change.

"If we had stayed home, they would have stayed put. We inspired those Muslims; we produced the cause celebre', the casus belli and they responded predictably."

I realize in the regressive alternate universe that 9/11 never happened, or was Bush's fault. However, in our universe, the US was pulling out of Saudi Arabia and saved thousands of Muslims lives in Europe and Kuwait. We were attacked, nevertheless.

Don't start that crap! It's always the same with you (and those who think like you): If a person is against the wars then she's a "truther". Please.

I know it happened. I know we were attacked. But there are other ways to deal with people who hate and want to kill - and did kill - our citizens than to invade countries. How about choking off their money supply? You know, find a way to hurt them financially.

The terrorists are hurting us financially and loving it because these wars are costing us billions. They know we have many needs in this country and need to spend the war funds here at home. They're enjoying watching us bleed financially as long as we're over there...so no matter what the outcome, they're already winning.

It's time for the Afghan army and police to take responsiblility for their own security. We're not the world police.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

Fine, provide a comprehensive plan for such a mission. Preferably in English and Pashtun! We're not being the world police, we're eliminating the SOBs who plan to kill us. I'm not accusing you of being a truther, just a naive person, or one with an agenda.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
[QUOTE]
You nailed it, beternU!!!

We have got to get out of the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's why we're hated and that's why they dig in and fight. How do some of you not understand that?

I'm tired of the because-we're-America-we-must-conquer-and-win bravado bs. What we must do is concentrate on our own needs for a change.

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:
[QUOTE]
You nailed it, beternU!!!

We have got to get out of the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's why we're hated and that's why they dig in and fight. How do some of you not understand that?

I'm tired of the because-we're-America-we-must-conquer-and-win bravado bs. What we must do is concentrate on our own needs for a change.

What is your plan for the next time we are attacked by Islamic terrorists? That is not the reason they hate us. They hate us because we're not Islamic and practicing sharia law. The problem the military has is the political influence and lack of a specific goal. I think Afghanistan is unwinnable because no ones can define winning.

quote:

They hate us because we are over there occupying their homelands in an imperialistic fashion.

quote:

Originally posted by Alphonse:

quote:

They hate us because we are over there occupying their homelands in an imperialistic fashion.

We weren't occupying anything we they attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Besides, we are far from occupying them now. I can speak from personal experience, the average guy on the street is very happy to see the U.S. forces come into an area and start spending money.

quote:

Originally posted by Buttercup:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

Fine, provide a comprehensive plan for such a mission. Preferably in English and Pashtun! We're not being the world police, we're eliminating the SOBs who plan to kill us. I'm not accusing you of being a truther, just a naive person, or one with an agenda.

I'm naive because I'd rather spend war money on our own country's needs? Interesting. Then again, you're with the crowd that wants us to be known as big, bad, bully America. I guess people like you just like war. Maybe men like you never truly grew up and out of playing Cowboys & Indians.

Anyway, if I'm naive then I'm in the same boat as the 62 percent of Americans (in a new CBS poll) who say the war is going badly; I'm in agreement with the 54 percent who say a timetable for withdrawal of troops is a good idea.

But you go ahead and think what you want, John Wayne. Keep thinking it's a good idea to try and force democracy on countries that clearly don't embrace it. We've spent billions on this mess and have lost thousands of lives - with no "mission accomplished". Yeah, that makes sense. That's not naive.

And I'm curious: What exactly is your plan to eliminate all who hate us? That's a pretty big list at this point. Do we invade them all? If we don't have enough volunteer troops call for mandatory conscription in this country again? That's right, big, bully America is gonna beat 'em all up.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by Alphonse:

quote:

They hate us because we are over there occupying their homelands in an imperialistic fashion.

We weren't occupying anything we they attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Besides, we are far from occupying them now. I can speak from personal experience, the average guy on the street is very happy to see the U.S. forces come into an area and start spending money.

Our occupation of their "Holy Land" was THE stated reason from Ben Laden for his attack. We were still in Saudi Arabia and some other places after Gulf War 1.
Like anybody else, I have NO idea if we had not been there, if an attack would have occurred, just the rantings of that scum. He added, almost as a second thought, the Palestinian issue, but most people believe that is just something else to justify his crime.

If as you imply, all we are doing in Iraq is supplying them with tourist, we should get out today ! Not the business of our military to supply tourist to another country. Better to bring them home and send them to our Gulf Coast if we wanna supply tourist dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Shoals Resident:
So Paw-Paw (or anyone else) what is your solution to ending these wars? Withdraw all troops and walk away? Then what? How do we stop terroism from coming into the US? The cost of these wars is astronomical (monetarily and lives) but I don't see a real solution. I am selfish enough to prefer that they be fought over there rather than here. I haven't heard a good plan for dealing with all of the problems. Have you?

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As to the theme of this post, the muslims fought a protracted war that enlarged their domain from Arabia to most of the middle east, northern Africa, most of Spain, and to the gates of Vienna.

From the Pyrenees, the Spanish fought a generational war, the Reconquista, to slowly reclaim their land.

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As to the theme of this post, the muslims fought a protracted war that enlarged their domain from Arabia to most of the middle east, northern Africa, most of Spain, and to the gates of Vienna.

From the Pyrenees, the Spanish fought a generational war, the Reconquista, to slowly reclaim their land.

As did the Khans, Alexander, and the Romans, but they killed, sacked, burned, conquered and moved on. Didn't take the time to nation build.
After some extended trouble with Carthage, the Romans plowed salt into their fields.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:

quote:

Originally posted by seeweed:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
As to the theme of this post, the muslims fought a protracted war that enlarged their domain from Arabia to most of the middle east, northern Africa, most of Spain, and to the gates of Vienna.

From the Pyrenees, the Spanish fought a generational war, the Reconquista, to slowly reclaim their land.

As did the Khans, Alexander, and the Romans, but they killed, sacked, burned, conquered and moved on. Didn't take the time to nation build.
After some extended trouble with Carthage, the Romans plowed salt into their fields.

In 500 years, the Muslim held lands have contributed nothing to the life of the mind. Spain has.

As to your three examples. The Khans either conquered of absorbed in their western expansion. True, they left little behind. However, in the eastern expansion, they consolidated China and preserved civilization in China.

Alexander's eastern expansion was ephemeral and that empire ceased with his death. However, he allowed the Greek empire to bring civilization to areas around Greece and Italy.

On Rome, I thoroughly disagree. The Romans expanded their empire and stayed. The results were a civilization Londonium (London) to the middle east. Paved roads connect the empire from the western shores of Gaul, thru Spain, to the middle east and across north Africa. The Mediterranean (once pirate ridden) was pacified. Great cities were build and aqueducts to provide water (at least one in north east Spain is still in use). For a thousand years, civilization reigned.

quote:

Originally posted by paw-paw:
"We'll never influence Afghanistan to adopt a democratic government. They don't want it, they don't understand it, it's contrary to their earnest religion, it's not gonna happen"

Excellent point. If they came to our country and tried to force their way of life on us, we would be outraged. Or at least we would have in years past. Now days, I am not so sure.

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
Iraq is no longer a major concern, Afghanistan is. The goal in Afghanistan should be to simply ensure the new government does not harbor al Qaeda or Talib.

quote:

Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Elint,

Fine posts, and points well made.

I maintain my position that Afghanistan is not ready for democracy. For us to continue the Bush Doctrine, and assume that all people want democracy is asinine.

Perhaps you've been there. If so, you'll admit it's a country of backwards, religiously-poisoned atavists. A certain level of civilization and education is required for democracy and liberty.

What about Sweden? Why isn't Sweden concerned about the Afghan threat? What about Japan?

Argentina? How about Cameroon?

Does anyone hate them for their neutrality?

Why do WE, at punitive expense, shoulder the responsibility for the relief of any unconscionable situation?
Because we can? We no longer can. We're broke.

Yes, Afghanistan supported the Arabian terrorists who attacked us 9 years ago. They deserved a spanking.

That's different from nation-building.

Thanks for the good conversation.