SO, Obama wants a record amount in war budget.

[bane]

I guess it depends on your definition of "defeated". They were out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan when we pulled out the first time. They're out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan now. They'll be out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan 5 years from now. We're not going to invade Pakistan (at least I hope we won't), so, they're as defeated as they're going to get. The rest is the equivalent of the DEA's drug war here in the states. Unwinnable.

I think the idea is to engage in "nation-building" - a horribly expensive and time-consuming pasttime that in this case unfortunately is necessary. The idea is to enable a government there that is stable enough to handle extremists by themselves. That's why it was so baffling why, just a year after invading Afghanistan, Bush turned his attention to Iraq.

Pakistan is a scary place, but at least there is a functioning government there that is committed to fighting extremists.

I have to revise my earlier comments though: apparently the number of Taliban left in Afghanistan is in the hundreds. Can't remember where I heard that - it was a guest on The Daily Show I believe.

Nation building doesn't work. It just creates a place that is dependent on us, basically, forever. I agree that we can't just bail, but painting it as anything more than what it really is is disingenuous.

[VinnieKulick]

Bush turned his attention away because we set up a puppet government and figured in a few years, they'd be running like "USA East". But that didn't turn out, as those people would rather LIVE than fight a lot of the time.

That was the end result, but I don't think that's why Bush turned his attention away. He took his eyes off Afghanistan because Cheney had a hard-on for Saddam. Let's call it like it is here!

And, even though Iraq wasn't related to 9-11 I still think that eliminating Saddam and placing a favorable government in place was the right thing to do.

[Ugmo]

And, even though Iraq wasn't related to 9-11 I still think that eliminating Saddam and placing a favorable government in place was the right thing to do.

I thought you were a fiscal conservative. Are you only a fiscal conservative when it involves the government spending money on things you don't support?

[VinnieKulick]

I believe in the Constitution.

I believe that DEFENSE is a needed expense. I think that stabilizing a region is more effective, both politically and in the long run, financially, than letting jackoffs to fuck up a region.

[Ugmo]

I believe in the Constitution.

I believe that DEFENSE is a needed expense. I think that stabilizing a region is more effective, both politically and in the long run, financially, than letting jackoffs to fuck up a region.

So why are you bitching about the war budget then? All these wars you support cost money.

[VinnieKulick]

I guess when I said "I am not complaining, I am posting this because of all the people who pointed out how much we spend on defense when we're talking about the bailouts" you missed those posts.

He wants to spend more than everybody else, and the left isn't blinking, when they were all up in arms when Bush wanted more cash.

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

It's not close to a record. You have to always look at spending as a percentage of GDP. In 1945, defense spending was 37.5% of GDP. That would today be the equivalent of spending 5.5 trillion on defense. Obama is spending 700 billion.

Yeah and 700 billion is still too god-damned much. In 1945 we were coming off of the last war that we could actually justify fighting. Obama is spending more than George Bush on defense.


GW BUSH in the thick of the Iraq War

2005: $401.7 billion

GW BUSH last defense budget

2009: $515.4 billion

Obama's first defense budget

2010: $663.8 billion

The more things change, the more they stay the same. This motherfucker promised to end this imperialistic crap. He's fucking increased it! It doesn't make any difference what the GDP is. There is no justification for those expenditures.

That's why the far left anti-war and libertarians like myself are disgusted with Obama's lack of follow through with these occupations. The number one focus of Obama after he took office should have been to deescalate the war. In my eyes Obama and the Democrats are accessories after the fact to Bush and his administration's bullshit.

He did the exact opposite. He increased the defense budget and shifted the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Wasting more time, money, and most of all, American lives.

[lerxstcat]

I guess it depends on your definition of "defeated". They were out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan when we pulled out the first time. They're out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan now. They'll be out of power and hiding in caves or in Pakistan 5 years from now. We're not going to invade Pakistan (at least I hope we won't), so, they're as defeated as they're going to get. The rest is the equivalent of the DEA's drug war here in the states. Unwinnable.

I think the idea is to engage in "nation-building" - a horribly expensive and time-consuming pasttime that in this case unfortunately is necessary. The idea is to enable a government there that is stable enough to handle extremists by themselves. That's why it was so baffling why, just a year after invading Afghanistan, Bush turned his attention to Iraq.

Pakistan is a scary place, but at least there is a functioning government there that is committed to fighting extremists.

I have to revise my earlier comments though: apparently the number of Taliban left in Afghanistan is in the hundreds. Can't remember where I heard that - it was a guest on The Daily Show I believe.

When they say "hundreds", though, they may just be talking about the mullahs who are both clegry and officer corps for the Taliban. And of course, not EVERYBODY there has AK-47s; for each one who does, he can control quite a few who don't.

I agree with Bane's assertion that Afghanistan can never really be won or controlled, exactly because of the border with Pakisan and the history of the region. If Genghis Khan, the British Empire at its height and the USSR in a time of its great military strength couldn't, then neither can we, because they don't see us as the good guys anymore than they did any of the others who tried.

As for Pakistan having a functioning government, yeah it does - much like the US had a functioning government in the 1870s, but there were HUGE areas of the Western US where you couldn't go without risk of being killed and scalped. The Northwest Prtovince of Pakistan is a "Wild West" area where the government doesn't really rule. I can go in sometimes, and sometimes establish some control while it's physically there - which evaporates as soon as the army leaves. And their army has had a couple of "Little Big Horns" too, where the tribesmen fucked up the regular army real good. Which is part of the problem; we expect them to control their own territory, and they are touchy about that - and DO have nuclear weapons. A volatile mix, that. But they don't have the ability to control that territory, so the Taliban pass back and forth at will.

Our best tactic in areas like this should be the fast reaction force - someone with a traceable address fucks with us, we should go in, fuck their shit up as best we can, and GTFO. They'll be in disarray for a few more years, we'l monitor the sitch, and when they fuck with us again, do the same thing again. Meanwhile, no maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, MANY reserves or National Guard, in a bleak, desolate area.

[Tykel]

If China decided that your American government was unstable and needed to be replaced with a puppet government that would essentially increase in trading with China (economic security for China lets say, good reason to go to war right. to secure resources?), would any of you fight? I don't mean joining the military necessarily. The military and government cores could be dismantled while a majority live under the new puppet masters.

If you formed into splinter groups and various combat cells, those of you that would fight, would you be terrorists or freedom fighters, would you be sub human dogs, or Americans.

I am no doctor of political sciences but I do notice this tone of dehumanizing these people, and this position of authority "world police". I can understand going after an enemy. But all this talk about having to "stabilize a region", who gave America the right? Doe's America let other countries tell them what to do?

I personally, would become very much like the Taliban if I were to wake up one day and find myself living in a world overturned. I think most of you Americans would also. Sure I may get blown up, but I am sure I'd take a few of those Chinese soldiers out before I die.

Just something I think about when I read a lot of these political threads. The social divide is really amazing in terms of what it allows people to think.

I know two guys who fought in Afghanistan for the Canadian army, and I have asked them "did you kill anyone?" the answer was yes. I was also told about how terrible they feel now because for every 1 person they killed, there is now that persons family to hate us in return. Everyone person killed equals 10 others who now have a blood hate for us, for you.

It's fucked up.

[YokosAssWillEatItself]

There will be no winning the war in Afghanistan. Just ask any war historian. And the situation is getting worse, the US is now officially a broke nation, and the war chest is empty.

Obama should cut and run, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the US involves itself in wars it never should have started, it's economy is crumbling. Meanwhile China and Russia are divvying up Africa for their long-term economic futures. Continuing on the road the US is now on, is nothing short of complete and utter madness.