Obama made a terrible decision re Afghanistan

@msolga,

I offer my opinions without too much reservation, and welcome people to challenge what I say.

The secretary of defense and the secretary of state would have provided input to Obama to get their views.

I have always said that there is a conflict of interest to get input from soldiers/generals, because wars is their game and livelihood. Without wars, they can't command troops, or make a name for themselves. Most promotions comes from wars, not peace.

That being said, us armchair critics are probably working with only part of the most important information available to the president and his staff.

When congress was preparing to vote on the Iraq war, I wrote to Senator Diane Feinstein and told her not to approve the war. She wrote back and said that the information that the intelligence they have requires congress to approve the war.

Six years after the war, us armchair critics were right, and congress was wrong.

We can only come to our conclusions through the exposure we get from reading and listening to the media. However, we are now completing over six years in Iraq that was supposed to cost only $50-billion, and towards the end of last year, it was costing our country some $2-billion every week - all while our economy tanked and the federal deficit grows at untenable levels. 9-11 cost some 3,000 lives, but we've already sacrificed over 4,000 of our military, and untold tens of thousands of innocent Iraq lives as well as destroying their infrastructure.

Our economy is barely staying on life support, and Obama makes the decision to send 30,000 more troops into a war zone; how many more must our military sacrifice and how much more of our treasure must we spend for a war that's in a country with a corrupt government and control of the country falls into many different groups including the Taliban and al Qaida? If they are a threat to the US, they must also be more of a threat to Europe and their surrounding countries. Why are we footing most of the cost of this war?

We are not the world's police; it's logistically an impossible goal. We represent only five (5) percent of the world's population.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Interesting, c.i.

And thank you.

Not an easy question to answer, I know.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

(I seem to be agreeing with you a lot, lately! What can this mean? )

Evidently, you're turning into an ignorant bastard just like myself. You should be very worried indeed.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

We can only come to our conclusions through the exposure we get from reading and listening to the media. However, we are now completing over six years in Iraq that was supposed to cost only $50-billion, and towards the end of last year, it was costing our country some $2-billion every week - all while our economy tanked and the federal deficit grows at untenable levels. 9-11 cost some 3,000 lives, but we've already sacrificed over 4,000 of our military, and untold tens of thousands of innocent Iraq lives as well as destroying their infrastructure.

I was wondering, too, how much the US economy depends on the war industry? To what extent employment depends on it? It's a massive industry.

Not really expecting anyone to answer that, unless it's a particular area of interest, or expertise.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Nah! I reckon I'm in good company, Thomas! Very Happy

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I was wondering, too, how much the US economy depends on the war industry? To what extent employment depends on it? It's a massive industry.

In normal times, not too much -- when the economy is at full employment, every extra hour worked on making weapons is one less hour worked on making something else.

But in a recession, when a substantial percentage of workers is unemployed against their will, the government can boost employment by pumping up defense spending. As cynical as it sounds, Bush's war in Iraq probably made the 2001 recession shallower. Likewise, the surge in Afghanistan is probably increasing employment as well.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But in a recession, when a substantial percentage of workers is unemployed against their will, the government can boost employment by pumping up defense spending.

The US war machine boost will not happen with the Obama administration in power.
The current recession will worsen, inflation will kick-in and unemployment will increase.

Positive change will begin with the elections of 2010.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

But in a recession, when a substantial percentage of workers is unemployed against their will, the government can boost employment by pumping up defense spending. As cynical as it sounds, Bush's war in Iraq probably made the 2001 recession shallower. Likewise, the surge in Afghanistan is probably increasing employment as well.

Well, I'd imagine that this would be a factor which would have to be taken into consideration, Thomas.

I know my own country's weapons expenditure costs (to the US, largely) has increased markedly, as a result of our involvement in Iraq & Afghanistan (Say nothing of our "deputy sheriff" role in the south Pacific. Rolling Eyes

). And we're just small fry in the whole scheme of things!

Apart from this, if a country's going to become involved in ideological warfare on other people's soil, it's then necessary to seriously upgrade your own defensive capacity. Suddenly you have a whole new bunch of enemies which you never had before ..... & they might just get it into their heads to retaliate! Neutral

1 Reply

@msolga,

The budget for the department of defense is huge! I believe for 2009 its over $500 billion, and that doesn't count the extras that funds the wars which are approved by congress as "needed."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, I knew it was some phenomenal amount, c.i.
And I guess it keeps on growing as conflicts escalate?

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Well, I'd imagine that this would be a factor which would have to be taken into consideration, Thomas.

Of course. But notice that the employment-boosting effect only depends on the government's deficit spending. There is no special magic in spending it on the military as opposed to, say, expanding unemployment benefits, or subsidizing health insurance premiums.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Priorities, I guess.
But if one was being utterly cynical, it could be argued that investment in military spending (in times of war, or threat of war) generates much, much more quick profit than investing in education or assisting the unemployed or improving the health of a community ever could!

1 Reply

@msolga,

I believe the US is the largest supplier of military hardware in the world, and that's been on-going for many decades.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I rather suspected that that was the case, c.i.! Wink

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe the US is the largest supplier of military hardware in the world, and that's been on-going for many decades.

The US, Russia, China and France are the worlds largest exporters of military hardware.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The US, Russia, China and France are the worlds largest exporters of military hardware.

Isnt Britain there somewhere ? I seem to recall reading they cornered the market after WWII. They are also the permanent members of the UN Security Council, a handy position for selling weapons.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Not true: here's the largest exporters of military hardware.

Quote:

1 United States USA 7505 5801 4984 5581 6616 7026 7821 7454
2 Russia Russia 4190 5631 5458 5355 6400 5576 6463 4588
3 Germany Germany 1622 825 910 1707 1017 1879 2891 3395
4 France France 1033 1235 1342 1313 2267 1688 1586 2690
5 Ukraine Ukraine 280 649 440[11] 530[11] 600[12] 700 1000[13] 1395[13]
6 Netherlands Netherlands 259 192 243 342 218 611 1575 1355
7 United Kingdom UK 1356 1116 772 624 1143 871 978 1151
8 Israel Israel 308 850 125 468 287 536 472 414
9 Italy Italy 192 224 407 321 216 787 860 562
10 South Korea South Korea 100 240 140 140 410 260 260 844
11 People's Republic of China China PR 228 498 544 553 271 223 564 355
13 Canada Canada 83 129 182 279 305 193 227 343
14 India India 4 6 18 17 35 75 105 266[14]
15 Serbia Serbia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 32,6 71.6 191.3[15]
16 Czech Republic Czech Republic 80 54 73 94 112 109 117 238[16]
17 Switzerland Switzerland 104 120 109 139 201 166 144 211
18 Bulgaria Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A 250[17] N/A 190[18] 149[19] 192[20]
19 Spain Spain 321 298 365 309 533 244 258 238

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not true: here's the largest exporters of military hardware.

Quote:

World's largest arms exporters

You went from "military hardware" to "arms exporters" ... please make up your mind .

0 Replies

Part of Obama's speech as he accepts the Nobel Peace Prize.

Quote:

In them, Obama refused to renounce war for his nation or under his leadership, saying defiantly that "I face the world as it is" and that he is obliged to protect and defend the United States.

[/b]

My response: He is Not protecting and defending the US; Afghanistan does not post any danger to the US as much as to the surrounding countries of Afghanistan.

Quote:

"A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms," Obama said. "To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history."

My response: That history no longer holds true; it's not about any Hitler with access to war machines and the people to taking over whole swats of other countries. al Qaida and Taliban are a small band of terrorists who must be controlled by the world community, not the US. How much longer does Obama think he will sacrifice our soldiers and treasure in a country half way around the world with a corrupt government without true control?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

That is the kind of speech he should have given at West Point.

0 Replies

Obama made a terrible decision re Afghanistan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know