Glenn Beck

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by Danzig

exactly. things have changed-everyone knows they can't stand toe to toe with us in a conventional war....but here we are, eight-nine years after we went to afganistan, and there we still are. reminds me of when england spent centuries trying to take over wales. a huge military power, but couldn't cow their much smaller neighbor who resorted to guerrilla tactics. it took eight castles and edward the first to finally do the deed...but i digress. lessons to be learned from that, as well as from the ussr making the attempt back in the day..

And the mighty Russia had to abandon Afganistan in defeat. The French has to leave Indo-China in defeat. America had to leave Viet Nam in defeat. But, we didn't have to leave Iraq in defeat. We did manage to get that genocide maniac hanged by the rafters and took out his maniac sons and virtually all of his henchmen. Good show, USA!

Afganistan is Obama's war. Take it up with him if you think he'll listen. That was one of the issue on his platform. Now he's stuck with it.

Get the heck out of that rock heap. Keep drones flying over and take out poppy fields when they're found. The country is a lost cause. Fred and Wilma Flintstone would turn their nose up at living there.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

And the mighty Russia had to abandon Afganistan in defeat. The French has to leave Indo-China in defeat. America had to leave Viet Nam in defeat. But, we didn't have to leave Iraq in defeat. We did manage to get that genocide maniac hanged by the rafters and took out his maniac sons and virtually all of his henchmen. Good show, USA!

Afganistan is Obama's war. Take it up with him if you think he'll listen. That was one of the issue on his platform. Now he's stuck with it.

Get the heck out of that rock heap. Keep drones flying over and take out poppy fields when they're found. The country is a lost cause. Fred and Wilma Flintstone would turn their nose up at living there.

It's definitely Bush's war, as he had planned on invading prior to 9/11. Obama campaigned to move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, which I thought was simply a ploy to gain votes from war apologists. I agree the right move would be to get the heck out of there because it's like Vietnam, we can't win.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul.../na-campaign16

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Bill doesn't spew hate and bitterness in any way. Let's get that straight right now.

Where did I saw we spend as much on illegals as we do for Israel. I said that I'd rather see money spent or sent to Israel than supporting illegal alliens.

I don't know what the numbers are as to the cost of supporting illegal alliens - taking into consideration the money they make, if they are working, that doesn't get spent in this country.

The cost to the federal government was estimated at $10.4 billion according to the Center for Immigration Studies' (a group that advocates tougher immigration rules) report in 2004. Even if we grow that number by (an absurd) 50% for the 5 fiscal years since, that's $16 billion. We spent $28 billion on Israel last year.

I'd rather all the money like this be spent right here in the USA.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by philcski

It's definitely Bush's war, as he had planned on invading prior to 9/11. Obama campaigned to move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, which I thought was simply a ploy to gain votes from war apologists. I agree the right move would be to get the heck out of there because it's like Vietnam, we can't win.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul.../na-campaign16

The cost to the federal government was estimated at $10.4 billion according to the Center for Immigration Studies' (a group that advocates tougher immigration rules) report in 2004. Even if we grow that number by (an absurd) 50% for the 5 fiscal years since, that's $16 billion. We spent $28 billion on Israel last year.

I'd rather all the money like this be spent right here in the USA.

Well, obviously BO was dead on serious about Afganistan. Wonder why Cindy Sheehan isn't beating her gums about it. She's off preaching to 100 people audiences about the bad Catholics who won't let her talk in their churches. Despicable woman.

But, I digress.

That's a plan, philcski - keep all our money at home. The USA becomes isolationist. Pull all the troops from every country in the world. Do away with aid to any country. Screw 'em. If they have a tsunami, an earthquake, a volcano eruption, flood, famine, whatever, let them work out their problems - 99 chances out of 100 they don't appreciate us for anything we do. We're the rich old, ugly, aunt who can afford it, and we don't give enough away or do enough anyway.

Build up the military. Close the borders. Point a nuclear missile at any country that so much as looks at us crosseyed.

That's what we'd have to do if we start pulling money away and stopped supporting and defending the few allies we have left.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Well, obviously BO was dead on serious about Afganistan. Wonder why Cindy Sheehan isn't beating her gums about it. She's off preaching to 100 people audiences about the bad Catholics who won't let her talk in their churches. Despicable woman.

But, I digress.

That's a plan, philcski - keep all our money at home. The USA becomes isolationist. Pull all the troops from every country in the world. Do away with aid to any country. Screw 'em. If they have a tsunami, an earthquake, a volcano eruption, flood, famine, whatever, let them work out their problems - 99 chances out of 100 they don't appreciate us for anything we do. We're the rich old, ugly, aunt who can afford it, and we don't give enough away or do enough anyway.

Build up the military. Close the borders. Point a nuclear missile at any country that so much as looks at us crosseyed.

That's what we'd have to do if we start pulling money away and stopped supporting and defending the few allies we have left.

That's an extreme, and rather silly view of what I'm suggesting.

We spent much of the 1800's in a moderate isolationist period (re: the Monroe Doctrine.) The USA established itself as the premier country in the world during this period and maintained that without a lot of work or money; it allowed the country to grow organically from basically the 13 original states to almost where it is now stretching from coast to coast (before the advent of easy travel!)

Let's be realistic here. No country we couldn't squash like a bug has looked at us crosseyed since Japan/Germany in 1941. The wars we have fought since then in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been on foreign soil to protect political interests, not in any way self defense (even though the last two have been masked as anti-terrorist, they haven't exactly succeeded at that), against opponents that if we did want to pull the nuclear trigger they would be eradicated like fruit flies. Our military/defense budget at over $1.1 trillion, or almost $4,000 per person, has spiraled out of control. You could send EVERY college student to school for free for HALF that amount. We spend 7.5X the amount of the next country in gross dollars, and as a percent of GDP there's only one developed nation that spends more (Greece at 4.5% versus the USA's 4.06%- I have no good explanation for Greece's military budget other than their GDP is minuscule.)

Providing help to our neighbors such as Haiti or Chile in times of need is obviously goodwill we can continue- but you overestimate the actual cost of this. The federal government spent $170 million on relief efforts in Haiti, a far cry from what private sources such as the Red Cross contributed. I'd love to think they appreciate our help... sometimes I'm not so sure, but I'll err on the side of humanism and say they do.

Our borders are now, for all intensive purposes, closed. A passport is required to get to Canada. CANADA, our best friends and one of the few countries that matches America's quality! I grew up on the border. We could enter and exit with a simple "what's up, eh?" and an "yo man, I'm back". That freedom will never return, ever.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by philcski

That's an extreme, and rather silly view of what I'm suggesting.

We spent much of the 1800's in a moderate isolationist period (re: the Monroe Doctrine.) The USA established itself as the premier country in the world during this period and maintained that without a lot of work or money; it allowed the country to grow organically from basically the 13 original states to almost where it is now stretching from coast to coast (before the advent of easy travel!)

Let's be realistic here. No country we couldn't squash like a bug has looked at us crosseyed since Japan/Germany in 1941. The wars we have fought since then in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been on foreign soil to protect political interests, not in any way self defense (even though the last two have been masked as anti-terrorist, they haven't exactly succeeded at that), against opponents that if we did want to pull the nuclear trigger they would be eradicated like fruit flies. Our military/defense budget at over $1.1 trillion, or almost $4,000 per person, has spiraled out of control. You could send EVERY college student to school for free for HALF that amount. We spend 7.5X the amount of the next country in gross dollars, and as a percent of GDP there's only one developed nation that spends more (Greece at 4.5% versus the USA's 4.06%- I have no good explanation for Greece's military budget other than their GDP is minuscule.)

Providing help to our neighbors such as Haiti or Chile in times of need is obviously goodwill we can continue- but you overestimate the actual cost of this. The federal government spent $170 million on relief efforts in Haiti, a far cry from what private sources such as the Red Cross contributed. I'd love to think they appreciate our help... sometimes I'm not so sure, but I'll err on the side of humanism and say they do.

Our borders are now, for all intensive purposes, closed. A passport is required to get to Canada. CANADA, our best friends and one of the few countries that matches America's quality! I grew up on the border. We could enter and exit with a simple "what's up, eh?" and an "yo man, I'm back". That freedom will never return, ever.

Of course it's a silly view - I meant it to be silly in response to your saying you want to keep the money spent on Israel at home.

And the isolation practice of the 1800's worked then, but it's not going to work now. To compare the two times is history is ludicrous.

No one is afraid of America anymore because we've lost our desire to actually dig in and fight a war. Why the heck fight a war if we're not in it to win it. Stay the heck home, save money, and save lives.

Borders should be secured north and south - not as an affront to either nation but as a means of keeping America safe. We're not back in the days when crossing borders was no big thing. But we have terrorists, drug runners, and convicted criminals escaping justice who need to be stopped cold in their tracks. It just isn't the same USA prior to 1979 when all hell broke loose and the USA humiliating itself by not taking a firm stance from day one of the Iran Embassy takeover. We've been treated as weak and pushovers ever since, and we haven't done much to prove that we're not.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Of course it's a silly view - I meant it to be silly in response to your saying you want to keep the money spent on Israel at home.

And the isolation practice of the 1800's worked then, but it's not going to work now. To compare the two times is history is ludicrous.

No one is afraid of America anymore because we've lost our desire to actually dig in and fight a war. Why the heck fight a war if we're not in it to win it. Stay the heck home, save money, and save lives.

Borders should be secured north and south - not as an affront to either nation but as a means of keeping America safe. We're not back in the days when crossing borders was no big thing. But we have terrorists, drug runners, and convicted criminals escaping justice who need to be stopped cold in their tracks. It just isn't the same USA prior to 1979 when all hell broke loose and the USA humiliating itself by not taking a firm stance from day one of the Iran Embassy takeover. We've been treated as weak and pushovers ever since, and we haven't done much to prove that we're not.

So we should act tough with a strong military, but be a big softie when people come calling for money? What exactly does that do for average Americans other than cost a lot of money?

We don't need to act tough anymore. The age of imperialism is long but over. The country should worry about what goes on inside our borders and forget about what the kooks in desert lands on the other side of the globe think of us. There is a select culture that will always hate us for being America and there's absolutely no chance that will ever change.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by philcski

So we should act tough with a strong military, but be a big softie when people come calling for money? What exactly does that do for average Americans other than cost a lot of money?

We don't need to act tough anymore. The age of imperialism is long but over. The country should worry about what goes on inside our borders and forget about what the kooks in desert lands on the other side of the globe think of us. There is a select culture that will always hate us for being America and there's absolutely no chance that will ever change.

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. We can be tough and still have a heart. And, I'm not as afraid about "kooks in other lands" as I've become of the "kooks in D.C.", and not all of them are Democrats.