As a Modern-Conservative, I think the government has to do ensure three main things:
1.Domestic justice
2.Domestic rights
3.Domestic Tranquility
So, it confuses me terribly when my President [present or past] talks about leading a crusade to destroy radical Islamic terrorists on the other side of the planet. On September 11th, 2001--terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York. Suddenly, President Bush had a 90% approval rating [because obviously being POTUS while terrorists kill thousands of innocent people is something the American people approve of] and we were going to war in Iraq.
Why? Weapons of Mass Destruction. Them ol' WMD's were far too dangerous to Americans who live over 3000 miles away from Iraq [who doesn't even have half the rocket technology to get a bomb out of Baghdad]. So we went in, most people thought that the words Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, and terrorists all resided in the same place--along with them ol' WMDs[which seem to be invisible WMDs now].
People started getting pissed off about the whole thing, and then everyone hated Bush. Then President Obama came along, said he was going end the war in Iraq--and he's seeming to do that. The only problem with this is that he's bleeding more troops into Afghanistan every day. Our top generals say it'll take more and more troops to get the job done in Afghanistan. By the way, can anyone help me with the "job" that needs to get done in Afghanistan? I'm a little confused on that one...
While all this goes on, I have to ask myself what the purpose of even fighting on foreign soil when we seem to be extremely protected at home. I can't even bring my deodorant onto an airplane because secrurity is so tough and we're supposed to think radical Islamic terrorists are going to attack us? For a Conservative [not a Republican], it's safe to say that mainly defensive military spending is favorable when our Domestic Tranquility is far from threatened. If we had used the billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on precautions that would prevent terroistic attacks on America--I wonder how much safer things would be...
-RW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Let me help you Richard with the Problem in Afghanistan! Poor farmers are forced to rely on Opium production to survive. The people demanding this opium (in the form of poppy) are terrorist groups like the Taliban. Well You can't just destroy the poppy without hurting the poor farmer who only wanted to feed his family. The Taliban will transport the crop (no need to hire a truck to take your harvest into market) and provide field protection (against American troops). Thats just part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteSo Afghanistan is a "Safe Haven?" You have the fringe areas or "Tribal Regions" of Afghanistan that are home to your best and brightest of terrorists. Poor farmers and madrassas that take their young children and indoctrinate them all funded by rich Saudi Arabians are a combination for DISASTER.
Why Afghanistan? Isn't this hypocritical? First things first, the war in Afghanistan isn't an act that democrats hadn't anticipated. We knew the problem was in Afghanistan in the first place. The problem was that BUSH BUSH BUSH!!! took his eye off of the ball in Afghanistan and began to focus on Iraq. The real problem was always in Afghanistan. You've heard liberals saying that there weren't Taliban insurgents in Iraq until there were American Troops in Iraq. This is True! The point is that the blunder in Iraq cost more American lives and money than needed; furthermore, by shifting focus away from Afghanistan the Bush Administration allowed Al Quieda to regroup in the Tribal Regions in Afghanistan. Presenting us with the problems we have today.
I forgot the part where any of that was our problem OR actually threatening to our safety?
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I 100% agree with you on this Jordan. Yes, there were problems in Afghanistan, but if you remember back to 2001 right after the attacks the terrorists were not in the center of Afghanistan but rather flirting over the border with Pakistan and the US was putting huge amounts of pressure on the Pakistani government. The reason we went into Afghanistan isn't because we honestly believed the terrorists were sophisticated or rallied enough to strike again, we were busy making sure that wouldn't happen state-side with legislation like the PATRIOT ACT (yes, the evil legislation that it is had a purpose - though it failed at achieving it and risked civil liberties at the same time) the reason we had to do something rash was because the American public demanded retaliation. The blunder of being overly heavy handed and less diplomatic and tactical then turning attention towards Iraq is the cause for the current problem in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteSo, spending should be put towards Afghanistan, but ALOT of effort needs to be put into foreign relations, Hillary has been extremely disappointing, she is just going around making a fool of herself and the administration. With better international support I think the conflict in Afghanistan wouldn't be so taxing fiscally or in American lives.
So thats how I see it... but there are issues that I am far more opinionated about and could give much better insight...
Well we're part of the international community and as a member of that community it is our job to step up and do something about the problem of religious fundamentalism (as it relates directly to the security of the United States and Her Allies). A socially isolationist policy gets you no respect in the international community and neither does a simply unilateralist policy.
ReplyDeleteReally? I wasn't aware it was America's duty to maintain a high approval rating abroad... That must be one of those "hidden truths" in the Constituion. Good thing we've got Obama.
ReplyDeletewhy should we be concerned with how much international respect we're earning policing poppy fields when American families are having trouble keeping dinner on the table? i think we should give all the paranoia about "the problem of religious fundamentalism" abroad a break.
ReplyDelete-AP