George Will Says We Should Get Out Of Afgahnistan

Occupying foreign lands by paying mercenaries to do so is one of the last gasps of a dying super power. Just before that is fighting those same wars without the general support of a volunteer army. I thought we were getting pretty close to the first with the advent, but always a bit unknown, of Blackwater.

Seems the support of volunteer army is being substituted by use of high tech. The populace is somnambulant when bled thru the pocketbook, but the result will be the same.

Obama surprises me. Coming out against the Iraq war made him look like he cared about America but its looking like a pure political calculation===otherwise how can you explain increasing the troops in Afghanistan? The same anti-war sensibility should have controlled, if that was what he was working from.

I’m not against building civilizations. I would just do it with more world support in areas more likely for it to catch on.

We should use our military like a gang-bang on leave. In and out quickly, don’t hang around for the boyfriends to show up. I guess what the troops know is hard to scale up.

The Afghans defeated Alexander the Great, they defeated the British Empire (twice), they defeated the Soviet Union. They don’t like foreigners in their country telling them what to do and they have always fought as hard as they can to throw them out. What reason is there to think that this time will be any different?

#2 and #5 Why are you surprised with Obama sending more troops to Afghanistan. It’s what he ran on. He said that Iraq was a mistake and taking resources from the real war on terror which is in Afghanistan.

He didn’t run on a anti-war message. He ran on a Anti-Iraq war message. If ran a pure Anti-war message he would never have gotten elected.

#6–Jetfire==excellent question. I guess I agreed with him and therefore hallucinated/hoped he agreed with me. I think he was just criticizing Iraq but dancing to avoid the “no backbone liberal” label so he was showing he was no pacifist. But I was still hoping, no longer now, that he was actually rational and would not bleed America in foreign misadventures.

Get your troops in and out. Done with it. Over time, threatening to do so should have desired outcomes at 1/100th the cost.

Without going back over the news reports at the time, I’ll say his position on Afghanistan was ambiguous as to his plans for future actions, but I could be wrong.

Excellent call out. Thank You.

Given that 9/11 was clearly a false flag attack by the US government on its own people, yeah we should get out of Afghanistan. There’s no reason to be there.

All this could have easily been avoided had we turned our attention to drilling and refining our own oil. We have plenty you know.

So much that we could be selling our oil to the rest of the world instead of fighting wars to keep it flowing from the Middle East.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy.

So you’re for nationalization of the oil industry then? Cause that’s the only way “our” oil will be unaffected by relative supply/demand from the rest of the world oil market.

We have a fair amount of oil, but not an overabundance. I doubt we could supply our own need (esp for the future); I know we cant do that and sell it too. We are 13th in proven oil reserves BTW.

#14-tcc3-I doubt we could supply our own need (esp for the future); I know we cant do that and sell it too.

Well, not with that attitude.

We are capable of far more than you might think if government would get out of the way.

Uhh, Dr. Dodd. Even minimal research will tell you that isn’t true. The US produces about 1/3 of our curent oil needs, we import 2/3rds of the oil we use. There is simply no way we can make up the deficit domestically.

Your statement, “All this could have easily been avoided had we turned our attention to drilling and refining our own oil. We have plenty you know. So much that we could be selling our oil to the rest of the world instead of fighting wars to keep it flowing from the Middle East.” has not been true since 1973. We have burned up most of our useable domestic oil reserves.

And if you are thinking about “shale oil”, forget about it. It would take a barrel and a half of oil to produce a barrel of oil from shale reserves. In other words shale oil is worthless, which is why nobody is bothering to even try.

This is the problem with every U.S. military operation: how to get out without appearing like we’re giving up.

It’s especially tricky when there was either no real objective, or the reason was phoney. (i.e. WMDs, get Osama).

We can get out of Iraq now: claim that the Iraq government is in charge, then leave.

To get out of Afghanistan, just withdraw all regular U.S. forces. Then bomb the hell out of the Pakistan/Afghan border region until we can produce a corpse that we can claim is Osama.

#18-ArianeB-The US produces about 1/3 of our current oil needs, we import 2/3rds of the oil we use.

We need to look no further than the religion of environmentalism and politics to explain why we are not “allowed” to drill… not “allowed” to prosper.

#23-bobbo-do you have a single link that reports…

Sorry but no, I didn’t know this was going to be a written exam.

If it helps, the gulf is reported to be quite promising. So much so the Chinese jumped on it like a dog in heat. Alas our politicians stayed home and only licked themselves.

Dr Dodd, you focused on only part of my response. Are you for Government control of American oil and if not, how do you propose to isolate us from the world oil market?

I shudder to say it, but I have to agree with Alf.

Obama should be impeached. As should have every president back to at least Herbert Hoover, after their first six month or so of molesting the Constitution.

And Bobbo has it partly right. Going in with a blitzkreig and getting out fast is not a bad strategy. Neutron bombing the entire Middle East is better.

#28 I don’t argue the merits of the war…although i never agreed to nation building…only squashing Osama bin laden…

Its just financial necessity…we are bankrupt.

We cannot afford it…or better, our children and their children cannot afford the interest on the money we must borrow to continue, let alone the entire cost.

What exactly does the loud mouth talking head George Will know, that makes him any sort of authority worth listening too?

But, #11 little bopeep, has it right.
“Another ‘Cut and Run’ conservative who’s words are only going to embolden the terrorist to attack America again.”

As typical the RePUCKaTons are living out their lies at America’s expense.

It’s hilarious what BUSH wannabes and Alfred1 followers are now saying about Afgahnistan. They supported the BUSH agenda then, why not now? Now they say cut and run because for them it’s just a RePUCKaTon political football and not what is good for America.

I guess it wasn’t enough that the Taliban enabled and supported Al-Qaeda in the September 11, 2001, WTC attack.

It seems the RePUCKaTons and BUSH never really wanted to kill or capture Osama bin Laden (How bin Laden got away) or eliminate the Taliban.

Hey Loser==the question you pose is a favorite of existentialists. One school says do whatever floats your boat. Another branch says you cannot choose to take anothers life no matter what the circumstances–ie, the actual choice to “take” life will actually be made by other people, ie==those forcing “you” to choose.

But assuming one really loves one’s wife, and assuming nothing more is known about the 10 strangers, who but a LIEBERTARIAN would choose his wife?

#35–Greg==don’t you think your wanting to fix Afghanistan is too close to me wanting to fix your religion?

The ugly American is defined by those who honestly can’t conceive of anyone being any different than themselves.

We are all entrenched in the way we have grown up and very resistant to change. Change can only be made thru very subtle techniques.

We should leave Afghanistan NOW–and just leave behind satellite tv’s for every family with free subscription service to American tv. They’ll be converted in 10 years if the Taliban doesn’t go thru and trash them all, which I am sure they would.

#37–Chris–yea, its called “an idiot trap.” But even most idiots can figure out why.

# 33 LibertyLover

“Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?”

I let you know when the situation happens, meanwhile I’ll ask my wife to fetch me a beer.

# 33 LibertyLover,

In case you missed it (you seem rather dim witted), I said “LOUD MOUTH” not XXXL mouth.

# 43 LibertyLover,

As I said in #40,

“I let you know when the situation happens”

I don’t foolishly claim what I would do in such an extreme and unlikely “Auschwitz-Birkenau” like hypothetical.

Call me what you will, it’s reality, something you seem to have lost touch with in your hypothetical thinking.

# 45 LibertyLover,

I see you haven’t read my answer to your silly question, let me re-post.

As I said in # 40,

Answer:: “I let you know when the situation happens”

I don’t foolishly claim what I would do in such an extreme and unlikely “Auschwitz-Birkenau” like hypothetical.

It’s the reality, something you seem to have lost touch with in your hypothetical thinking.

To help you, I will be happy to keep re-posting until the cows come home.

#46, That’s not an answer. That’s avoidance — something every liberal that’s had the question posed to them has done.

Please be a man and answer the question.

Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?

#49, Quit avoiding the question.

Would you let 10 strangers die to save your wife?

#51, Answer:: “I let you know when the situation happens”

That is not an answer, it is a response. That is avoiding the question until a later time. That is the same thing as saying, “I am not answering now. I’ll answer later.”

It is a yes/no question — it does not require an explanation. This is something all little kids are taught in school. How old are you? Perhaps you are not married and therefore this question doesn’t apply. If that is the case, please state so and quit pretending to be an adult.

Scenario:

Your wife is sick. There is a cure but it will cost $10,000 to save her. You have that money in your pocket. She wants the cure. Just as you are about to get into the car, 10 husbands walk up and ask for that money to save their wives. That $10,000 will save all of their lives.

Would you tell those 10 husbands to get lost or would you look your wife in the eye and say, “The good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one?”

#53, I have no opinion one way or the other. It’s a thought experiment, one I was challenged to answer and did.

As for what your answer will tell me — not a whole lot. It will tell you quite a bit about yourself if you were to actually answer it instead of avoiding it.

Do all liberals go through honesty avoidance classes?

Would you tell those 10 husbands to get lost or would you look your wife in the eye and say, “The good of the many outweigh the good of the few or the one?”

#55, BWAHAHAHAHA! What does GWB have to do with this? Is that you Mr. Poison? You sure look the same. You think because I don’t follow the Obamessiah I just HAVE to be a GWB supporter. Again, BWAHAHAHAHA!

In any case, once again you display a lack of understanding for the English language. A question is posed. You can either answer it or avoid it. Why do you continue to avoid it?

Do you not know what you would do? Any man worth the name would answer this. Are you ashamed of your wife? Did she run off with your best friend? Your father? What?

Here is a real life scenario quite a few people have actually had to decide on.

Scenario 2:

You are shopping with your wife. A fire breaks out in the store. You see your wife down the aisle. The fire is about to spread to her and she has no escape. Luckily for her, there is a fire extinguisher on the way to save her. Just as you get to the fire extinguisher, you notice a group of kids trapped by a different branch of the fire.

In a moment of clarity, you realize you can either save the kids or save your wife, but not both.

Your wife is screaming for you to save her. The kids are screaming for anyone to save them. What do you do? Save your wife, save the kids, or sit there confused because you refuse to make a decision while the fire consumes all of them?

#57, You are pointless and pathetically boring.

Why, because I force you to reconsider your attitude on life? Your statement is the standard for any illumination scenario. You attack the questioner instead of thinking logically about the situation. You refuse to vocalize your true feelings because that would be admitting defeat. So instead, you fight the inevitable.

You may not know it, but your outlook has already started changing. You can no longer look across the dinner table without thinking of this question from time to time. And you will always come up with the same answer. This answer will soon start to affect how you look at other things in life.

Scenario 3:

You and your wife are out in a ski-boat with another couple. The driver of the boat hits a log and flips the boat, killing himself. Your wife and the female friend are both unconscious, floating the water. You are unable to tell which one is wounded the worse.

Which one to you pull to shore? Your wife or your friend?

# 58 LibertyLover said,

Which one to you pull to shore? Your wife or your friend?

Answer: Both

# 61 LibertyLover,

Let it go.

I answered you in #60, Both

You agreed in #60, “you got me.”, that I answered you.

It’s on record, I have fulfilled you request, Let it go.

# 63 LibertyLover said,

answer:: “I let you know when the situation happens”

You are pointless and pathetically boring.

You have my answer, live with it.

You would know if you where there!

# 67 LibertyLover,

No

# 69 LibertyLover,

“I let you know when the situation happens”

Love

I guess I should appreciate your concern.

I still don’t get the almost if not Faustian Dilemmas you posed.

ll I can say is good for you Mr preacher.

Now that you are off on another one of your useless self absorbed dead end treks, I’ll let you tickle yourself on your own time, not mine.

#14, Independent of the morality of insurance company decisions I still fail to see how the following will not increase costs: reject people for pre-existing conditions, drop people who get sick, or limit out of pocket expenses. All these mandates to an insurance company will increase my cost as a purchaser of their product.

What will happen if this passes is it will become illegal for insurance companies to drop people. That will raise the price.

To keep the prices down, they will limit what they pay doctors. This will bring the quality of healthcare down.

But that’s ok. At least everyone will be covered. Right? Right?

#21, FTW

#24, OK, so, I suppose you consider Medicare unconstitutional.

Yes.

Public Schools? Highways.

Only if provided by the States and not the Federal Government.

Where does the constitution prohibit social programs, just curious.

The 10th Amendment prohibits it by not authorizing it directly.

#32, unregulated free market has got America into the dire financial situation it is now.

If you consider 330,000 pages of government regulations “unregulated” then you are correct.

#69, A few states have tried it already and it failed. Look at Hawaii’s failed social healthcare system. They shut it down in less than one year because it went bankrupt. Luckily, they didn’t have the power to print more money to keep it afloat.

Now multiply that by 57, er I mean 50, states.

The problem with the healthcare system is the 330,000 pages of federal regulations. It is near impossible to get anything done without violating some regulation. So doctor’s have to hire teams of people whose only purpose is to deal with the government regulations.

And you want to create another agency without fixing that first?

Give me a break, please.