too late

[ssgliberty]

its too late to pull the troops out of the war because bush is a dumb ass if we pull the troops out now we will get bombed it`s a fact might as well vote for mccain because clinton is out of the election. if bush wasent a dumbass and dident try to finish what his daddy starterd the troops would be out by now.

[Atonement]

You think that after invading a nation, and being one of the strongest nations in the world, we will get bombed for pulling out of independant nations? No.

[The Batman]

They'll kick us out before McCain decides to pull out. I think we should pull out or at least fight the people that attacked us. What are you basing your opinion on Liberty?

[Oblivion]

You think that after invading a nation, and being one of the strongest nations in the world, we will get bombed for pulling out of independant nations? No.

Agreed
A) They don't want war anymore than most of America does.
and
B) I believe bombs can be shot down if they are expected, especially from far away.

[Zephyr]

Well as McCain put it,
"We'll be in Iraq for 100 years..."
Meaning he's willing to stay there for as long as he thinks it should take.
Also meaning we're dumping billions of dollars more into the middle east,
Rather than here in our own country.
But as Thomas said, they're more likely to kick us out before we pull out.
They want us out just as bad most Americans want to pull out,
But we have to try to finish what we started otherwise that makes us look worse than we already are.

Anyway, it's stupid to attack the US since we're a superpower.
If they mess with us, then we'd more than likely pull out the big guns,
As we always do.

Man, I can't wait until I move out of this country.

[jaja]

Bush Just Announced They Are Sending More Troops To Afganhistan to supposedly protect people in that area.First Off What The Hell Do We Care About These People For We Arent Allianced With Them At All So Wtf Are We Protecting Them For? The Middle East Is Allianced With Russia So Why In The Hell Arent They Helping Them For?Because There Is No Problem :l Soldiers Are Being Deployed There For Some Hidden Reason.Seems Like Everytime I See Bush On The Stand Talking I See A Pile Of Shit With A Mouth Speaking Of Nonsense.There Is Simply No Reason For Bush To Send Troops To Afganhistan.Seems Like He Is Trying To Cause More Havoc Since He Knows He Has To Go.

P.S. OBAMA OWNS MCcrack :D

[Sapphire]

I do believe that both the US and the British troops are handing over areas to the Iraqi security as they become strong enough to handle them. Occupation doesn't seem to be as indefinite as a couple of years ago because there are observable improvements being made. I know that nothing is back to "normal" in Iraq, but the situation is looking much more promising.

I am in agreement with setting a date for withdrawal. It gives time for the hand-over to take place properly and gradually. I think that a quick withdrawal will leave too little time for Iraqi security to prepare themselves.
However, it really depends on who wins the Iraqi Presidential election, as well as the US Presidential election, as to what will happen with the presence of the coalition troops.

Jaja, America is a very powerful nation and capable of helping those who are not as strong. Should stubbornness and selfishness really stand in the way of protecting and helping those who are in need?

[jaja]

A Very Powerful Nation Indeed But A Very Selfish One Also.We Don't Just Go To A Country To Protect People And Come Out With The Good Feeling That We Helped Somebody.America Is Also A Very Greedy Country So They (Bush And The Government) Are Getting Something Else Out Of This.Of Course, It Will Never Be Known To The Public Because Troops Will Refuse To Go Over Some Bullshit That No One Cares About Except For Them.

[Sapphire]

Who says that they aren't doing it to help stabilise them?

I still fail to see why you think that the USA shouldn't help countries in the Middle East...

[Zephyr]

Who says that they aren't doing it to help stabilise them?

I still fail to see why you think that the USA shouldn't help countries in the Middle East...

When we don't help, we become the selfish bad guys.
When we do help, it's never good enough and we get bashed for it.

It's a Catch-22.

[ssgliberty]

Anyway, it's stupid to attack the US since we're a superpower.
If they mess with us, then we'd more than likely pull out the big guns,
As we always do.

.

lol yeah true

[Maverick]

When we don't help, we become the selfish bad guys.
When we do help, it's never good enough and we get bashed for it.

It's a Catch-22.
Exactly

And why should we help when we are in enormous amounts of debt and have an economy in a recession. It makes no sense at all to give aid or help another country militarily when we can't pay our bills and have problems of our own.

[Sapphire]

And why should we help when we are in enormous amounts of debt and have an economy in a recession. It makes no sense at all to give aid or help another country militarily when we can't pay our bills and have problems of our own.

If you take this stance then when would it be good for them to help? You have the KKK, Neo-Nazis, a vast number of homeless Americans and that is only naming a few. Will the time to help overseas be when these have all be dealt with and solved?

[Zephyr]

We need to pay off our debts and fix our economy before we go dumping billions of dollars into another country. We have so many loans out from foreign banks, it's ridiculous.

Need I show you our national debt?:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

A dollar that is spent there is a dollar that is not being spent here,
And that is not healthy at all.

You can't look at a $9.6 trillion national debt and say that we have the ability to keep on dumping billions of dollars into the middle east everyday.

[Sapphire]

I know that your economy is going down the shitter because it is having knock-on effects here. I am not saying that you shouldn't straighten your countrys economy out first. I was just pointing out that that specific train of thought cannot be followed all the time.

[CaptainObvious]

Bush Just Announced They Are Sending More Troops To Afganhistan to supposedly protect people in that area.First Off What The Hell Do We Care About These People For We Arent Allianced With Them At All So Wtf Are We Protecting Them For? The Middle East Is Allianced With Russia So Why In The Hell Arent They Helping Them For?Because There Is No Problem :l Soldiers Are Being Deployed There For Some Hidden Reason.Seems Like Everytime I See Bush On The Stand Talking I See A Pile Of Shit With A Mouth Speaking Of Nonsense.There Is Simply No Reason For Bush To Send Troops To Afganhistan.Seems Like He Is Trying To Cause More Havoc Since He Knows He Has To Go.

P.S. OBAMA OWNS MCcrack :D

What does America care about Afghanistan for? Is that a serious question?

Well, first, America deposed the Taliban government of Afghanistan, which should logically mean that America is morally obligated to remain in Afghanistan until the Taliban are eradicated and the country's new government is stable.

Second, Afghanistan is a staunch American ally near Pakistan, which is on the brink of destabilization (if you knew anything about Afghanistan, which you obviously don't, you'd know that Russia, as the Soviet Union, invaded Afghanistan during the Cold War; Afghanistan is not a Russian ally).

Third, Osama bin Laden is speculated to still be in the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan. Since those areas are on or near the border with Afghanistan and killing OBL is still a top US priority, that's another reason to be there.

I think you need to spend a little time reading about this conflict; your grasp of the facts is obviously not complete.

P.S. Stop with the capitalization. It's highly annoying.

And why should we help when we are in enormous amounts of debt and have an economy in a recession. It makes no sense at all to give aid or help another country militarily when we can't pay our bills and have problems of our own.

This would be valid if America hadn't deposed the Taliban and created the insurgency and regional instability themselves. The US has a moral obligation to stabilize the country and make sure the legitimate government is secure before leaving.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

its too late to pull the troops out of the war because bush is a dumb ass if we pull the troops out now we will get bombed it`s a fact might as well vote for mccain because clinton is out of the election. if bush wasent a dumbass and dident try to finish what his daddy starterd the troops would be out by now.

McCain = moar war. Moar war = more $$$. Moar $$$ = less America.

[Maverick]

If you take this stance then when would it be good for them to help? You have the KKK, Neo-Nazis, a vast number of homeless Americans and that is only naming a few. Will the time to help overseas be when these have all be dealt with and solved?
Well I don't support any kind of foreign aid sent by our government. I don't believe in foreign aid at all. I don't think its right for the government to take its citizens money and send it elsewhere.

But what I do support is voluntary aid. People sending money overseas by their own choice. Its their money and no one elses and they should decide what to do with it.

[ssgliberty]

mccain = moar war. Moar war = more $$$. Moar $$$ = less america.

obama=troops pulled from iraq troops being pulled from iraq=us geting bomed geting bomed=more$$$ more$$$=poor america

[ssgliberty]

Bush Just Announced They Are Sending More Troops To Afganhistan to supposedly protect people in that area.First Off What The Hell Do We Care About These People For We Arent Allianced With Them At All So Wtf Are We Protecting Them For? The Middle East Is Allianced With Russia So Why In The Hell Arent They Helping Them For?Because There Is No Problem :l Soldiers Are Being Deployed There For Some Hidden Reason.Seems Like Everytime I See Bush On The Stand Talking I See A Pile Of Shit With A Mouth Speaking Of Nonsense.There Is Simply No Reason For Bush To Send Troops To Afganhistan.Seems Like He Is Trying To Cause More Havoc Since He Knows He Has To Go.

P.S. OBAMA OWNS MCcrack :D

MCcain OWNS OFATBOMA

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

I don't think its right for the government to take its citizens money and send it elsewhere.

I don't think anyone could have put that in a more perfect way.

[ssgliberty]

me ethier

[Antares]

Well McCain isnt the only canadate at the moment...hes a choice but not the only choice. VOTE FOR NADER!
lol
Anyways, yeah its time to come out. I say like 1 company thingy a month...a nice slow steady withdrawal. That would keep the peace while getting us out. Unlike bush who promised but recently decided to keep them in.
SOMEONE IMPEACH HIM!!
Even if there are like 4 months because at the moment people think we are just sitting here letting him do whatever he wants because we are.

and if someone bombs us i am moving to canada(period)

while the us and whoever else brings an end to the world with total nuclear annihalation.

[ssgliberty]

Unlike bush who promised but recently decided to keep them in.
SOMEONE IMPEACH HIM!!
Even if there are like 4 months because at the moment people think we are just sitting here letting him do whatever he wants because we are.

and if someone bombs us i am moving to canada(period)

while the us and whoever else brings an end to the world with total nuclear annihalation.

yeah IMPEACH BUSH is right and if we get bombed i`m moveing to canada with you!!!!

[Sapphire]

Well I don't support any kind of foreign aid sent by our government. I don't believe in foreign aid at all. I don't think its right for the government to take its citizens money and send it elsewhere.

That's a bit harsh. Foreign aid can be very successful and rewarding for the US as well as the foreign countries receiving it.
Just look at the Marshall Plan. That was successful and benefited the US by helping to provide economically strong trade alliances.
In fact, the Marshall Plan was suggested for use in post-cold war Russia and in Africa because of its success in Western Europe.

[byee]

its too late to pull the troops out of the war because bush is a dumb ass if we pull the troops out now we will get bombed it`s a fact might as well vote for mccain because clinton is out of the election. if bush wasent a dumbass and dident try to finish what his daddy starterd the troops would be out by now.

I know you feel strongly about this subject, Lib, but let me clarify one very important thing you've said.

The first President Bush did NOT start the current conflict. Yes, he sent troops into Iraq after they invaded Kuwait in the first Gulf War, but after he liberated Kuwait, he purposely did NOT invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein b/c he (rightfully) believed that would destabilize the country. The goals were very limited at that time.

The current President Bush invaded a soverign nation under false pretext (the now phony WMD ploy), disregardling not only the intel about WMD, but also the advice of his father's National Security advisors about the (now correct) prediction about the likely result.

What to do currently is a difficult moral and strategic question, but historically, it's important to understand the facts and apply them correctly. George H W Bush did NOT start this conflict, George W Bush did.

[Maverick]

That's a bit harsh. Foreign aid can be very successful and rewarding for the US as well as the foreign countries receiving it.
Just look at the Marshall Plan. That was successful and benefited the US by helping to provide economically strong trade alliances.
In fact, the Marshall Plan was suggested for use in post-cold war Russia and in Africa because of its success in Western Europe.
Sending money overseas and helping countries I have no problem with, but people should have a choice whether to send it or not. I don't think its moral at all to forcibly take from someone to give to someone else. What's so wrong with people having a choice?

[CaptainObvious]

Sending money overseas and helping countries I have no problem with, but people should have a choice whether to send it or not. I don't think its moral at all to forcibly take from someone to give to someone else. What's so wrong with people having a choice?

So you are morally against all taxation, then?

[Maverick]

So you are morally against all taxation, then?
No not at all. Taxation isn't the same as foreign aid. I support taxation that is spent to fund the government to carry out its responsibilities. I don't consider giving foreign aid a responsibility of the government.

[jaja]

lol afghanistan or iraq whatever would get owned we have so many nuclear bombs in our inventory its hard to count.I think some date back all the way to like WWII rofl.

[theOperaGhost]

No not at all. Taxation isn't the same as foreign aid. I support taxation that is spent to fund the government to carry out its responsibilities. I don't consider giving foreign aid a responsibility of the government.

I agree with Ant. Our tax dollars should be used for our the good of our own country before they are used for foreign aid. This may be selfish, but we should care about ourselves first, then foreign countries.

[Sapphire]

Sending money overseas and helping countries I have no problem with, but people should have a choice whether to send it or not. I don't think its moral at all to forcibly take from someone to give to someone else. What's so wrong with people having a choice?

The Marshall Plan was Government driven, not privately driven, and it did worked abroad as well as improving trade opportunities. Why knock something like this if it works? Who is to say that Government-driven aid won't benefit your country now or in the future?
There is a whole world beyond the confines of the USA and some Americans would do well to think of that.

[Maverick]

You're missing my point. I believe in the idea of freedom. People deciding how to spend their money as much as possible. I'm not saying we don't help the world at all or pretend they're not there, but people sending their money at their own choice.

This would be valid if America hadn't deposed the Taliban and created the insurgency and regional instability themselves. The US has a moral obligation to stabilize the country and make sure the legitimate government is secure before leaving.
Hmmm I just saw your post. Your argument would be valid if we could afford it. but the fact of the matter is we can't. Our government and citizens have racked up so much debt its getting to a point where it will become impossible to pay off. We have a national debt of 10 trillion dollars and we have unfunded future liabilities at 50 trillion dollars.

I do agree with you that our foreign policy has been terrible but America racking up all this debt to fund these things isn't sustainable.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

The Marshall Plan was Government driven, not privately driven, and it did worked abroad as well as improving trade opportunities. Why knock something like this if it works? Who is to say that Government-driven aid won't benefit your country now or in the future?
There is a whole world beyond the confines of the USA and some Americans would do well to think of that.

I think you're missing a few things that made the Marshall Plan work. first, we'll talk numbers. The U.S. distributed about 13 billion dollars across Europe over 4 years. In 2006 alone we sent out over 100 billion dollars to various places. And don't say anything about inflation, because our money today isn't worth 8 times what it was back then.

The second key point is that the world was trying to recoup from a large-scale war involving nearly all of Europe; this is pretty much the U.S. vs. Iraq, and we're not exactly in a depression.

The point is, today foreign aid is being sent to countries that simply can't support themselves, unlike the Marshall Plan's recipients, who were able to stabilize their economy and help ours grow.

[Sapphire]

I think you're missing a few things that made the Marshall Plan work. first, we'll talk numbers. The U.S. distributed about 13 billion dollars across Europe over 4 years. In 2006 alone we sent out over 100 billion dollars to various places. And don't say anything about inflation, because our money today isn't worth 8 times what it was back then.

The second key point is that the world was trying to recoup from a large-scale war involving nearly all of Europe; this is pretty much the U.S. vs. Iraq, and we're not exactly in a depression.

The point is, today foreign aid is being sent to countries that simply can't support themselves, unlike the Marshall Plan's recipients, who were able to stabilize their economy and help ours grow.

I wasn't saying that the conditions were exactly the same. I was illustrating that foreign aid doesn't always simply have a draining effect on the country giving it.

Your figures there are misleading because you haven't taken into accoun what the money was used for. The Marshall Plan didn't involve sending in troops to secure areas and protect people because in that situation it wasn't needed. The troops, vehicles, ammunition etc that have been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan will probably account for a large portion of the money that you referred to.

[Antares]

I agree with Ant. I don't think that the US should be the help country all of the time.
We need to get out of the spotlight and let GB be the empire that it wants to be (just looking at how many commonwealths and such it has). Why waste our tax dollars on stupid stuff around the world when we have issues taht need to be addressed at home. i understand helping people btu we don't always help people. i think that foreign aid needs to be strictly the problem of the charitable organization.


lol afghanistan or iraq whatever would get owned we have so many nuclear bombs in our inventory its hard to count.I think some date back all the way to like WWII rofl.

And no, I am sure we know how many bombs we have and I am also sure there are not 60 year old nuclear bombs in bomb shelters scattered across the US waiting to be dropped on random countries for them to blow up in transit or not even work. :rolleyes:

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

Foreign aid doesn't account for people we send over seas to fight our own war(s).

Also, I know you didn't mention that the conditions were the same, however what they had back then was opportunity; what we have is, as Ant so clearly put it, a major debt that only grows larger as we send out more aid. So yeah, sending money to other people when they need it works for us now and then. But for the past few years, we've just been digging ourselves into deeper holes.

Of course, I will admit that my numbers may be inaccurate, as I did not cross-reference them too deeply; they may just be guesses or estimates, because it's hard to find the data you're looking for on one sight so I just went for the best looking one.

[Sapphire]

We need to get out of the spotlight and let GB be the empire that it wants to be (just looking at how many commonwealths and such it has). Why waste our tax dollars on stupid stuff around the world when we have issues taht need to be addressed at home.

You lot do realise that your debt is affecting other countries in the world, don't you?

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

Um...I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if I'm somewhat right, the effect we have isn't a very positive one. Which means foreign aid isn't helping.

[Sapphire]

My last post was not about foreign aid. It was about the effect that the US economy has on other countries. When your economy is strong, ours (UK) is more likely to be strong too. Now that you are in huge debt, we are becoming more in debt too.

EDIT
The target set by the UN in 1970 states that all rich countries should give 0.7% of the Gross National Income as foreign aid. Most countries do not meet this target. The UK's average over the past four years is 0.43% (10,204 USD) while the USA has an average of 0.19% (23,632.5 USD). Denmark has an average of 0.82% (2,219.5 USD) and the Netherlands averages at 0.79% (5,189.25 USD).

I seriously doubt that the US is in this much debt due to the foreign aid it has been giving.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

I don't see much logic in that, considering the UK currency is now double ours and continues to rise. And all I said was that f.a. doesn't help our economy OR yours. I don't think you're examining my posts very well...

[Sapphire]

I don't see much logic in that, considering the UK currency is now double ours and continues to rise. And all I said was that f.a. doesn't help our economy OR yours. I don't think you're examining my posts very well...

My post about debt wasn't directed at you in the first place which is why you can't seem to understand it.

[Falk 'Ace' Flyer]

I can't see who that post was addressed to from reading back, nor can I see how that would support a point of view...

Your post didn't quote anyone in the first place which is why I responded to it.

[CaptainObvious]

I think you're missing a few things that made the Marshall Plan work. first, we'll talk numbers. The U.S. distributed about 13 billion dollars across Europe over 4 years. In 2006 alone we sent out over 100 billion dollars to various places. And don't say anything about inflation, because our money today isn't worth 8 times what it was back then.

You're right, US currency is not worth an eighth of what it was then... it's worth almost a twelfth. $1 in 1945 would buy you $11.41 worth of goods today.

So in fact, the US is now giving less than it did, once adjusted for inflation. Got another argument?

Hmmm I just saw your post. Your argument would be valid if we could afford it. but the fact of the matter is we can't. Our government and citizens have racked up so much debt its getting to a point where it will become impossible to pay off. We have a national debt of 10 trillion dollars and we have unfunded future liabilities at 50 trillion dollars.

This is a bad way to look at the issue, in my opinion. You're being alarmist; America is nowhere near credit-based economic collapse. Times have been tough lately, but America's debt is not impossible to pay off.

But even aside from that, I consider it an even more important obligation for America to finish the job in Afghanistan. I don't care how in debt the government is; it is America's (and the rest of the international coalition's) responsibility to stabilize the region. This is not really a matter for debate, in my opinion. International forces leave, and the whole area will destabilize. If you are advocating that because you think the miniscule (relatively) amount of money spent on Afghanistan is such a horrible burden for the US, I cannot see your viewpoint. You're essentially advocating a move that could cause major carnage, suffering and instability across that whole area in return for what is in effect pinching a few pennies. Afghanistan, as a component of the federal budget, is so cheap compared to the positive effects that helping legitimate government to be able to defend itself against the Taliban insurgency that I'm floored you oppose it.

There's lots and lots of places worse off than America out there. I think all developed countries should give foreign aid, because they all can. Yes, there's always fiscal troubles, but that is in my opinion no excuse to bail on basic humanitarian assistance.

[theOperaGhost]

America's debt is not impossible to pay off?

Another thing, this might sound selfish and asshole-like of me, but America was able to prosper in a couple of centuries. Why is it so hard for other countries to take care of themselves. Foreign aid is bullshit. The other countries should be able to take care of themselves and not depend on other countries.

Another example of this is Japan. They blocked themselves off from the rest of the world for like 50 some years, then they come back and they are pretty much the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Why can some nations prosper on their own, and other rely on others. All of the nations in this world need to be more self-sufficient and independent.

[CaptainObvious]

Yes, America's debt is not impossible to pay off. Difficult? Absolutely. Not impossible.

As for your question of why America was successful where others have not been... use your brain. There's all kinds of reasons. Here's a few, off the top of my head:

1) Geography. America is huge, and much of that land is productive for farming and other purposes (as opposed to, for example, Russia and Canada, which both have tons of land but markedly less forgiving climates).

America's geography allowed the 2nd major reason:

2) Isolationism. Once America gained its independence, and because of its geographical position with only 2 neighbours - both of whom were militarily weaker - America was able to stay out of many of the major, bruising conflicts of the last 150 years. Most other countries didn't have that luxury.

3) No major ethnic or sectarian issues - the only native people were more or less exterminated and subjugated (which is absolutely horrible, but was extremely effective, since there are now no serious conflicts over land claims and heritage, unlike in many other areas of the world where current conflicts center almost exclusively around these issues).

And as to why it's so hard for other countries to prosper... use your head. Seriously. I'll throw out a few reasons:

Africa is still dealing with the political instability and massive poverty resulting from the brutal way in which Africa was colonized, as well as now dealing with a massive AIDS epidemic that it is not prepared for.

The Middle East is dealing with massive ethnic and sectarian strife in almost all countries, including the heart of the radical Islamic global terrorist movement. Many countries (on the Arab penninsula, that have oil money) are prepared to deal with these issues; others are definitely not.

Lastly, Japan was able to recover so well because it was extremely advanced and prosperous before WWII. It was merely recovering its previous stature. That's much easier than developing from scratch - and many of these countries have never been prosperous or stable.

Your saying that the rest of the world should just deal with its problems doesn't make you sound like an asshole; it makes you sound like you're not thinking about the issue very hard.

[theOperaGhost]

I don't see why other nations problems have to always turn into our problems. Here's one for you. The American Red Cross has like no money because it was all sent for aid after that tsunami and earthquake or whatever it was in India or wherever it was. But when there's disaster in America (hurricane Katrina) there's very little help. Did we get any foreign aid after that disaster? Why should we always be the one to help other countries, when our country needs help. If there was nothing wrong with our country, I would think differently, but there is plenty wrong with our country that should take precedence over other countries. I mean, we don't have to be selfish about it, but really, take care of the problems at home first.

[CaptainObvious]

America doesn't get foreign aid because it's richer than almost any other country, and has comparatively less problems. Yes, Katrina was a problem. But it wasn't even close to the same scale as the Tsunami. If the Red Cross gave away every penny to help out in the Tsunami, Katrina would still be way better a saituatoin without their help than the Tsunami with all their resources committed.

The standard used in the world is not "make everything at home perfect before give anything to others." Rightly, because there are lots of places in the world that are horribly worse off than America, and I think America (like all other rich countries) has the responsibility to help out as they can.

[Sapphire]

I can't see who that post was addressed to from reading back, nor can I see how that would support a point of view...

Your post didn't quote anyone in the first place which is why I responded to it. It does now.

There's lots and lots of places worse off than America out there. I think all developed countries should give foreign aid, because they all can. Yes, there's always fiscal troubles, but that is in my opinion no excuse to bail on basic humanitarian assistance.
They all do. It is actually codified in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution that the developed countries in the world should give foreign aid each year and that they should be aiming to give 0.7% of their Gross National Income each year.

[A.J.]

I do NOT support this "war" but look at it this way. America is one of the most powerful countries and we are expected to help make other countries better. people opposing the war usually say things that are as retarded as saying 'the middle east was a wonderful place before we invaded. The children played by the chocolate river with gumdrop smiles.'