Poll

Was the Iraqi time table a mistake?

Yes, the enemy will just wait until we are gone and attack
1 (33.3%)
yes it made us look weak
0 (0%)
maybe
1 (33.3%)
no the Iraqi government wants us out
0 (0%)
no the war is wrong and we should leave
1 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Author Topic: Can we withdraw from Iraq?  (Read 776 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« on: April 23, 2009, 12:48:33 pm »
With the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq coinciding with the decrease in American troop levels who are headed to Afghanistan, it begs the question are we going to lose Iraq if we leave it?

Is Iraq really ready to protect itself without direct American military support?

I suspect my initial concerns about the timetable were indeed correct, the enemy did wait, and now that we are getting ready to leave they are stepping up attacks. I suspect Obama will fold and we will see a repeat of the Vietnamese boat lift in the Persian gulf with hundreds of displaced Iraqis desperately trying to free chaos and tyranny.

Under no circumstances can we allow such a thing to happen, if we should learn anything from our past, its our responsibility to protect our allies.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Social Buttons


Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2009, 02:05:57 pm »
Is Iraq really ready to protect itself without direct American military support?

No, and it will never be. Give a man a fish, and you create a dependant for a lifetime.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2009, 04:09:42 pm »
Its in our interest to make sure they have fish, otherwise we will have no oil and higher insurance rates for national symbol's.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2009, 05:42:25 pm »
In that case... We need alternative energy.

You know my plan, go nuclear 'til alternative energy technology becomes feasible. If the bleedinghearts whine about the nuclear, let them pour extra money into alternative energy development. Make it plain to them that the nuclear is only 'til it can be replaced.

The cost of this war is more than the worth of any amount of oil.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2009, 08:11:05 pm »
That doesn't solve the increased risk of "man made disasters"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4830824.shtml
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2009, 10:05:04 pm »
I don't think any of those questions are what we should be asking in order to determine whether we should still be there or not.

I think the correct questions are: does it serve american interests to be there? and is it our responsibility at this point?

To both of those I say no, therefore, I think we should be leaving immediately.

Of course, Obama is nearly as bad as Bush on this matter. He lied during the campaign making it sound like he'd bring all the troops home nearly immediately after taking office. Not only is it going to take a year for him to even start troop withdrawals but we are still going to be committed there for years afterward...

That and he has now "ramped up" activity in Afghanistan without any provacation. This is simply a continuation of Bush era interventionalism. We don't need to be involved in the affairs of the middle east, and don't need to be spreading democracy by force. These things ultimately do not work, waste our resources and lives of our young people, and do not further American interests.

If I were the President, I would begin troop withdrawals tomorrow from both Iraq and Afghanistan. I would close over sea bases we clearly don't need such as those in Germany... ect.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2009, 12:55:28 am »
So... Pat Buchanan 2012? Somehow I think it would end up like the last president named Buchanan. But instead of a civil war, you would have a world war.

The only reason Europe is at peace is because those us troops are there. Our power creates stability. We are holding the world together militarily and economically. It is our political, economic, and cultural model that is the basis of the world. It is our military that maintains the world.

If we pull back, you will see exactly what happened in east Europe when the soviets pulled back and collapsed, happen in Europe, the middle east, Africa, Asia, Latin America... in short... The entire world!

On the subject of Iraq specifically. As weakened as al Qaeda in Iraq are. the fact remains they exists, and persists. And they are capable of starting a war between the Shia and the Sunni. That will split the country in two, half with go to Iran, and half will go to Osama. The Kurds, and the Christians, Jews, and other minorities will be murdered in yet another genocide.

And as for Afghanistan. We are not doing enough! Our allies in Pakistan are on the brink, the forces of Osama are marching through Islamabad and we sit here and watch!

Pakistan is a nuclear country, and while that should be all the justification anyone should need for the interests of our country, (the very notion of Osama possessing a nuclear nation should be a call to arms for any rational mind) I personally think this line of reasoning inhuman. There are people in Pakistan! Human beings who ought to have the same rights that we enjoy, and they are on the brink! They are about to lose everything to this war. How can anyone argue for inaction? When you see a freind, and he is about to be murdered, do you sit back and say, "well its not in my interest?" That is exactly what the doves in this debate are doing.

The forces of radical Islam have declared war on us, and we would be signing our own death warrant to ignore a war that we had no part in starting, and that we have done proportionately little to stop. Its a global front and we have occupied just two countries.

How many nations, how many peoples, how many cultures, did we fight, occupy, or liberate in the war against fascism?

Should we be so hesitant to do even a fraction of what our grandfathers did in the face of islamo-facism? I think not!
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2009, 01:27:32 pm »
Fascism was different since it was an active campaign by an imperialist nation to conquer the world, and we were attacked by their ally before we intervened.

You can't just say "woops" when you realize you should have focused on Afghanistan when we were originally provoked 8 years ago and suddenly send more troops back in to stop something that's not our problem.

Our chance to catch Osama in Afghanistan is over, we are going to have to wait until he slips up and we inadvertently catch him again (like what happened under Clinton).

It's not our place to be invading foreign countries in order to stabilize them, or should I remind everyone of Black Hawk Down and Mogadishu?

Iraq is not our concern now and shouldn't have been our concern in the first place. The Bush administration trumped up false evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an excuse to invade and depose a Dictator and "spread democracy" which I maintain was Bush's original goal since he's a globalist a strong proponent of foreign interventionism. So is Obama, but his supporters don't realize that and are willing to excuse it out of hand just because he's not Bush.

Alia

  • Grammar Nazi
  • Patricians
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 196
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2009, 03:53:04 pm »
It's not our place to be invading foreign countries in order to stabilize them, or should I remind everyone of Black Hawk Down and Mogadishu?

Thank you!

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2009, 04:27:06 pm »
Quote
Fascism was different since it was an active campaign by an imperialist nation to conquer the world, and we were attacked by their ally before we intervened.

The ideology is similar, the belief in a totalitarian regime set to conquer the world. The difference is that the Islamic revolution is closer to the Bolshevik in that it is taking place in separate nations near simultaneously. While the front of Islamic fundamentalism is divided, it exists. And despite internal divisions it will eventually form a block from which we will have to defend ourselves against. We cannot avoid this eventuality, we must nip it in the bud.

Quote
You can't just say "woops" when you realize you should have focused on Afghanistan when we were originally provoked 8 years ago and suddenly send more troops back in to stop something that's not our problem.

That's an absurd argument. We occupied the country in at attempt to remove the Taliban from power and dismantle al Qaeda. To that end the continued existence of the Taliban is something we must face to achieve our objectives, and we cannot hope to expand into Pakistan without first securing Afghanistan, and time is of the essence.

It is both of critical strategic interest, and of moral obligation. It is most certainly "our problem."

Quote
Our chance to catch Osama in Afghanistan is over, we are going to have to wait until he slips up and we inadvertently catch him again (like what happened under Clinton).

That won't happen, and it would be meaningless if it did. Osama isn't the problem, he is a figure head. The problem is the condition of the Islamic world that creates people like Osama, and that won't be effected by removing him. We must safe guard our allies, and keep the middle east open. Only with an open middle east can we see the gradual economic improvements that will end terrorism.

Quote
It's not our place to be invading foreign countries in order to stabilize them, or should I remind everyone of Black Hawk Down and Mogadishu?

Of course its our place, if we don't they will fall into anarchy and we will have a slew of other problems, or should I remind everyone of the Balkans, and Rwanda?

Quote
Iraq is not our concern now and shouldn't have been our concern in the first place. The Bush administration trumped up false evidence of WMDs in Iraq as an excuse to invade and depose a Dictator and "spread democracy" which I maintain was Bush's original goal since he's a globalist a strong proponent of foreign interventionism.

First off your premise is a conspiracy theory and I find it not worth debating simply because it is ludicrous. Secondly globalism is progress, it is what we need to end a number of problems currently afflicting humanity, and I find any pretense of nationalism or isolationism to be an excuse for the xenophobic and the racist.

Quote
So is Obama, but his supporters don't realize that and are willing to excuse it out of hand just because he's not Bush.

Obama isn't going far enough, and neither did bush. I am happy that Obama is sending in more troops. But time is critical and we cannot afford to lose Iraq. I think we should seriously consider a draft, a solution to the manpower question might be found in awarding illegal immigrants amnesty in exchange for serving in the military. Historically this has been a popular and effective means of integration.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

Schizo

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2009, 11:15:00 pm »

Is Iraq really ready to protect itself without direct American military support?


  I have to wonder where you're getting your information from, as a February 23 article from this year has stated insurgent violence has hit an all time low since 2003. See source:http://www.army.com/news/item/4857

 Has the violence risen that dramatically since then?

 In all honesty, I think the sooner we can withdraw, the better. Prolonged military presence past a point where we're needed isn't likely to help matters. It'll probably end up being a sink or swim situation for Iraq no matter when we leave.

 Also, an interesting thing to note, while violence has been decreasing in Iraq, the violence in Afghanistan has been increasing, despite the increase in soldiers. I get the feeling that this whole "War on Terror" thing is just a endless game of cat and mouse that no one will ever win.
[Insert clever sig here]

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2009, 08:57:09 pm »
There have been recent attacks by Sunni extremists in Baghdad. Its obviously a ploy set off by the obviously weak Obama administration. Its reminiscent of the Tet offensive in Vietnam which was a last ditch attempt by the exhausted and demoralized Vietcong to topple the south. It was a colossal military defeat. But the far left spun it as proof the war is lost, and it became a diplomatic victory in that it convinced America to pull out, thus south vietnam was allowed to fall... and you know... millions of people were slaughtered and displaced by the communist murderors.

You have to realize these attacks are desperate, they have no resources, little support, and even less chance of success. But they aren't trying to win militarily, they are trying to scare us off. And I'm scared it will work, can Obama stand up to his own base on this issue? Well he has to, if Iraq goes under Al Qaeda gets a new base, once that has a strong infrastructure, huge oil reserves, and an economy that makes Afghanistan look like AIG. You can forget about winning the war on terror, if Iraq falls half goes to al Qaeda, half goes to Iran, and the middle east explodes into violence.

You can say goodbye to American forces in the middle east, and as a result, goodbye to Israel, Kurdistan, and millions of non radical Islamists, which I assume make up the majority. This will likely take place on the soviet model in which people are carted off in the night never to be seen again after being accused by anonymous sources.

It also has to be said, if we lose the war on terror, we lose our lives. The jihadists are clear. They want the entire world. And they will keep going until they get it. There is a racist attitude in the west that Arabs can't ever conquer us and aren't a threat. This is cynically used by the left to enforce their anti war agenda. But its source is found among white supremacists groups who masquerade as third party candidates. Ron Paul is a famous example.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar

SandStone

  • Equites
  • Cives
  • ****
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2009, 11:34:05 am »
The ideology is similar, the belief in a totalitarian regime set to conquer the world. The difference is that the Islamic revolution is closer to the Bolshevik in that it is taking place in separate nations near simultaneously. While the front of Islamic fundamentalism is divided, it exists. And despite internal divisions it will eventually form a block from which we will have to defend ourselves against. We cannot avoid this eventuality, we must nip it in the bud.

Just because the ideology is similar does not mean the threat is. Islamic Terrorism is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany's imperialist move to conquer all of Europe. We don't need to "nip it in the bud" because they are a bunch of rag tag sand people that don't bare us any real threat.

That's an absurd argument. We occupied the country in at attempt to remove the Taliban from power and dismantle al Qaeda. To that end the continued existence of the Taliban is something we must face to achieve our objectives, and we cannot hope to expand into Pakistan without first securing Afghanistan, and time is of the essence.

It is both of critical strategic interest, and of moral obligation. It is most certainly "our problem."

No we invaded Afghanistan in order to apprehend the masterminds behind 9/11. We were not on a mission to spread democracy. The Taliban got in our way that's why they were "dismantled" at the time. Although as recent events have clearly shown any attempt to dismantle said group is short lived and futile. It's like trying to forcefully break up the mob... which didn't happen for decades until internal circumstances broke them for us. Furthermore, it's like trying to break up the mob in a different country. It's simply not feasible nor is it our problem. Our only moral obligation is to the U.S. it's interests and it's citizens.

That won't happen, and it would be meaningless if it did. Osama isn't the problem, he is a figure head. The problem is the condition of the Islamic world that creates people like Osama, and that won't be effected by removing him. We must safe guard our allies, and keep the middle east open. Only with an open middle east can we see the gradual economic improvements that will end terrorism.

Osama was the one ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, I didn't say he was a problem now. The condition of the Islamic world is not our problem, and further meddling in middle east affairs will only lend us more grief later on. As is seen from the result of our arming the Taliban in the 80s. No amount of war can solve cultural and religious hatred, in fact it's like pooring gasoline on a fire.

Of course its our place, if we don't they will fall into anarchy and we will have a slew of other problems, or should I remind everyone of the Balkans, and Rwanda?

Whether or not a middle east country falls into anarchy is not our concern. Not our citizens, not our country, not our business. Rwanda was a perfect example of why we should stay the hell out of savage nations that don't want us there. How many more American soldiers have to die for foreigners that hate us and hate our ideals before the globalist "moral imperative" is complete? Considering this ideology has been in practice since Vietnam and possibly Korea going on 50 to 60 years now it seems needlessly endless when the fruits of the labor are by any measure less then amicable.

First off your premise is a conspiracy theory and I find it not worth debating simply because it is ludicrous. Secondly globalism is progress, it is what we need to end a number of problems currently afflicting humanity, and I find any pretense of nationalism or isolationism to be an excuse for the xenophobic and the racist.


It's a conspiracy that Bush lied about WMDs being in Iraq? It's a lie that is apparently well documented then everything from false testimony given to congress by Secretary Powell to distorted evidence presented by Rumsfeld about "mobile weapons caches" that never existed. That's not a conspiracy that's an open lie made to the public. Globalism is not progress because it seeks to undermine and artificially change human nature before human nature is ready. It won't work, and it's "progress" has brought us 3 major wars now 2 of which look like they will have lasted more then a decade before all is said and done. They've brought us financial ruin, loss of sovereignty, too much emphasis on foreign treaty, wasted hours and effort in search of middle east peace, and millions of lost American lives. You can keep your progressive globalism, I don't want it. Our primary concern should not be with humanity it should be with U.S. citizens end of story.


Obama isn't going far enough, and neither did bush. I am happy that Obama is sending in more troops. But time is critical and we cannot afford to lose Iraq. I think we should seriously consider a draft, a solution to the manpower question might be found in awarding illegal immigrants amnesty in exchange for serving in the military. Historically this has been a popular and effective means of integration.


Obama isn't going far enough? I suppose if you are in favor of European Socialism and foreign interventionism then I could see why you might think that. I'm not in favor of that. I'm not happy that he's sending in my friends and our people to die for people that don't want us in their country, and for a vague non-specified cause. Seems like we are having war just for the sake of war these days. We are leaving Iraq in June or did you not hear the Iraqi prime minister told us to get the hell out? I say good we should have never been there in the first time, it's about time we brought home our soldiers from a course not worthy for them to lose their lives over. And you think we should institute a draft? The government can draft me when I'm dead.

Giuliano Taverna

  • Dominus et deus
  • Cives
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Chelsea MA USA
    • View Profile
Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2009, 09:53:12 pm »
Quote
Just because the ideology is similar does not mean the threat is. Islamic Terrorism is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany's imperialist move to conquer all of Europe. We don't need to "nip it in the bud" because they are a bunch of rag tag sand people that don't bare us any real threat.

That's horribly racist. they are not "sand people" they are a network of terrorist organizations that are highly sophisticated and capable of maintaining military campaigns without the need for territory. This makes them an extremely dangerous threat because they can be anywhere, at any time. All they need is either sanctuary, or stealth. You know full well they are a threat, just look at what they have already done! They have toppled governments, bombed cities, and assassinated heads of state. That is an incredible threat. To suggest otherwise is either to express denial, ignorance, or insanity.

Quote
No we invaded Afghanistan in order to apprehend the masterminds behind 9/11. We were not on a mission to spread democracy.

Getting the masterminds of 9-11 isn't going to prevent the next 9-11. That is what you don't seem to understand or at least that is what you don't seem willing to accept.

Quote
The Taliban got in our way that's why they were "dismantled" at the time. Although as recent events have clearly shown any attempt to dismantle said group is short lived and futile.

Not at all, the resurgence of the Taliban has nothing to do with its capabilities and everything to do with our mistakes. We haven't been able to summon up enough resources and manpower do in large part to the misinformation polluting the policy debate, and its effect on our willingness to devote resources to this cause.

Quote
It's like trying to forcefully break up the mob... which didn't happen for decades until internal circumstances broke them for us. Furthermore, it's like trying to break up the mob in a different country. It's simply not feasible

There is a huge difference between the mob, and al Qaeda. The mob existed because of human nature, greed. They organized to illegally acquire wealth and for mutual protection. Al Qaeda uses similar organization, but they do something that goes against human nature. They commit suicide for a belief. Because this goes against human nature it is much easier to eliminate, and much more difficult to maintain. The only reason it has been so difficult for us is that we lack unity on the issue, and as a result we are losing the propaganda battle to the enemy who are united ideologically on enough issues to avoid the divisions holding us back.

Quote
nor is it our problem. Our only moral obligation is to the U.S. it's interests and it's citizens.

So the rest of the world can eat cake and you don't care? I have new for you, the rest of the world is going to kill us one of these days for thinking that way. They see us with all this money, power, and success. They live in a war torn third world hell hole, some Imam tells them everything that is wrong with their life is our fault. And they strap bombs to themselves and blow up our cities. That is how this works. So unfortunately for your isolationist contention, it is in our interest. Even if you don't give a sh1t about the rest of humanity like some people, myself included, do.

Quote
Osama was the one ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, I didn't say he was a problem now.

So this is about revenge to you, not national security? That's pointless!

Quote
The condition of the Islamic world is not our problem, and further meddling in middle east affairs will only lend us more grief later on. As is seen from the result of our arming the Taliban in the 80s.

We didn't arm the Taliban to improve the quality of life in Afghanistan, we did it to attack the Soviet Union by proxy. You are comparing apples to oranges, its not a legitimate comparison.

Quote
No amount of war can solve cultural and religious hatred, in fact it's like pooring gasoline on a fire.

 The purpose of all war is ultimately peace


Quote
Whether or not a middle east country falls into anarchy is not our concern.

So we should just make some pop corn, sit back in our lazy boy furniture, turn on our big screen TV's, and watch Iraqi women and children get beheaded by death squads from the comfort of our McMansions on planet dow. I'm sorry but I don't endorse such an absurd notion. If you see someone being murdered, you do something to help them. That goes for the tens of thousands of people in Iraq.

Quote
Not our citizens, not our country, not our business. Rwanda was a perfect example of why we should stay the hell out of savage nations that don't want us there.

Its a perfect example of what? We didn't do anything! The UN didn't do anything! People were just slaughtered wholesale by a rival tribe!

Quote
How many more American soldiers have to die for foreigners that hate us and hate our ideals before the globalist "moral imperative" is complete?

How many more humans have to die before Americans will grow a spine and some sense of humanity and lift one of their fat fingers to stop this madness?!

Quote
Considering this ideology has been in practice since Vietnam and possibly Korea going on 50 to 60 years now it seems needlessly endless when the fruits of the labor are by any measure less then amicable.

Vietnam wasn't the war we lost, it was the war we gave up, and we won Korea! South Korea lives, and it is an economic powerhouse, and a bastion of democracy.

Quote
It's a conspiracy that Bush lied about WMDs being in Iraq?

We had bad intelligence, he didn't lie, and WMD's were one of many reasons why Saddam needed to be overthrown.

Quote
It's a lie that is apparently well documented then everything from false testimony given to congress by Secretary Powell to distorted evidence presented by Rumsfeld about "mobile weapons caches" that never existed. That's not a conspiracy that's an open lie made to the public.

No those are statements made based on widely accepted and reputable intelligence that happened to be mistaken.

Quote
Globalism is not progress because it seeks to undermine and artificially change human nature before human nature is ready.

That's absurd, Globalism wasn't something people started. It is something that happened naturally as markets expanded do to free trade, and enhanced mobility. It is being artificially restricted by rogue governments, and reactionary extremists. Which is why I am proposing we eliminate these groups preventing the natural progress of humanity.

Quote
It won't work, and it's "progress" has brought us 3 major wars now 2 of which look like they will have lasted more then a decade before all is said and done.

Wars typically last a while, this short term, "home by Christmas" mentality is stupid. Its naive, and its stupid. Furthermore its dangerous. WW2 lasted almost a decade, the cold war lasted about 50 years. How can we ever effectively fight a war if we are too spineless to fight to win?

Quote
They've brought us financial ruin,

Bull! Our defense spending is a measly 4% of our GDP! It was higher in the early 1990's before Clintons defense cuts.


http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-s7-despite-war-costs-defense.html


And bare in mind, that is total defense spending, the amount we actually spent on both wars is a fraction of that. Its less than 1%.

Quote
loss of sovereignty,

In what capacity? I'm fine with some loss of sovereignty, I don't think nations should have the right to persecute minorities, commit crimes against humanity, and I believe they must create a basic level of prosperity for their populous with competent non corrupt government. and failure to do this in my mind, destroys their legitimacy as a nation state, and opens them up to foreign rule. I don't see any reason why people need to be governed by native members of their country. The very idea is based on racists xenophobic tendencies.

Quote
too much emphasis on foreign treaty,

Diplomacy is necessary, however we need competent diplomacy. the Obama apology tour is the flip side to the bush shot gun policy. We need the carrot and the stick, not just a ton of sticks, (bush) or a ton of carrots (Obama.)

Quote
wasted hours and effort in search of middle east peace,

hours spent on making peace in the middle east is not a waste by any definition of the term.

Quote
and millions of lost American lives.

I don't care about American lives, I care about human lives. The number if lives lost if we do nothing, far outweighs the amount lost if we do take action. Its as much a question of principle as anything. You can't say you believe in inalienable human rights, and then say they only apply to people living inside the American security bubble. You either believe in them, or you don't.

Quote
You can keep your progressive globalism, I don't want it. Our primary concern should not be with humanity it should be with U.S. citizens end of story.

And you can keep your xenophobic isolationism. Just don't claim you believe in anything in the bill of rights, because you are just fine when the rest of the world is denied them. And when floods of people beat down your border wall, because your policy allowed them to be driven from their homes, and you with your demoralized broken society try and fail to keep them out. You will have fully embraced the fate of the Roman empire you spend so much time denying you mimic in almost every capacity!

Quote
Obama isn't going far enough? I suppose if you are in favor of European Socialism

You know that's bullsh1t. don't play games here.

Quote
and foreign interventionism

You know full well I do.

Quote
then I could see why you might think that. I'm not in favor of that. I'm not happy that he's sending in my friends and our people to die for people that don't want us in their country, and for a vague non-specified cause.

Its a simple cause, to fix a broken nation, so that terrorism will disappear, and the threat which puts the entire world at risk will be ended.

Quote
Seems like we are having war just for the sake of war these days.

We should always have at least one war, because there are no shortage of enemies. Not people who I am suggesting we declare war on, people who have committed countless Casus belli against us, and against our allies already. Yet we sit in our bubble isolated from the rest of the world and reality, and ignore this until the enemy attacks us. Then we run in, blow some stuff up, and retreated with our fat stubbly tails between our legs when we realize people die in war, and the enemy isn't going to go down in 2 days with no casualties.

So we are attacked again, and again. And will be attacked again, and again. Until we are consumed by the world we spend so much time ignoring.

Quote
We are leaving Iraq in June or did you not hear the Iraqi prime minister told us to get the hell out?

I hear our commanders, the ones who aren't politically neutered by the Obama administration. And I know exactly what will happen if Iraq becomes a failed state. If you think we have a problem with the Somali Pirates, just wait for Al Qaeda dominated Iraq.

Quote
I say good we should have never been there in the first time, it's about time we brought home our soldiers from a course not worthy for them to lose their lives over. And you think we should institute a draft? The government can draft me when I'm dead.

You can go to Canada like the anti war nuts in Vietnam did, I'll send you a post card from Bagdad when I am inevitably drafted because of the policy I support.
"It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." Tiberius Caesar