WHY? How Long? Why Not? Why Shouldn't?

[Robo]

How long should the United States continue to militarily stabilize the Afghanistan government and protect them against the Taliban. ISIS/SISIL and AlQuada? Why should America’s taxpayers be forced to spend their blood and treasure in the middle east? Why isn’t the middle eastern quagmire an issue for the middle easterners to settle themselves? Why shouldn’t the United States just mind it’s own business and leave the middle east militarily and leave it to its own determinations? Why shouldn’t the United States follow the policy of our first President, “Commerce with all, entangling military alliances with none?”

 

[Truth Detector]

How long should the United States continue to militarily stabilize the Afghanistan government and protect them against the Taliban. ISIS/SISIL and AlQuada?

As long as it takes even if it is FOREVER.

Why should America’s taxpayers be forced to spend their blood and treasure in the middle east? Why isn’t the middle eastern quagmire an issue for the middle easterners to settle themselves? Why shouldn’t the United States just mind it’s own business and leave the middle east militarily and leave it to its own determinations? Why shouldn’t the United States follow the policy of our first President, “Commerce with all, entangling military alliances with none?”

Because unlike you, AmeriKa should not bury its collective head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists are not a threat to Democracy, Liberty and our allies/alliances.

 

[Robo]

As long as it takes even if it is FOREVER.

So then you believe that America’s blood and treasure are an endless commodity, right?

So then you’re perfectly willing to pay all of the taxes it takes to pay for all of the BIG government military interventionism authoritarian BIG government chooses to spend on undeclared unconstitutional wars, correct?

Because unlike you, AmeriKa should not bury its collective head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists are not a threat to Democracy, Liberty and our allies/alliances.

Then you think America was founded to be a “democracy” as opposed to a “Constitutional Republic” right? Can you explain in depth the difference?

Can you produce my quotes that prove I “pretend” that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorist are not a threat to Liberty? I’ll understand if you can’t!

Do you believe that George Washington was an idiot when he said, “Commarce with all, entangling alliances with none?”

 

[SmarterthanYou]

As long as it takes even if it is FOREVER.

should we have stayed in Nam?

what possible cost/benefit analysis did you do to come up with 'even if it's forever'?????

 

[Robo]

should we have stayed in Nam?

what possible cost/benefit analysis did you do to come up with 'even if it's forever'?????

I can't wait to read his answer to that. Oh! that's right he's one of those disappearing magicians when the questions get tough, huh?

 

[Truth Detector]

So then you believe that America’s blood and treasure are an endless commodity, right?

More dimwitted strawmen; you're quite full of them.

So then you’re perfectly willing to pay all of the taxes it takes to pay for all of the BIG government military interventionism authoritarian BIG government chooses to spend on undeclared unconstitutional wars, correct?

We don't engage in interventionism; we engage in defending liberty, our borders and our allies borders. I wish you had even the slightest clue of what you emotionally erupt about.

As for spending; I would rather see us spend on defense than the massive liberal efforts to re-distribute wealth in an effort to buy the votes of low information dumbfucks.

Then you think America was founded to be a “democracy” as opposed to a “Constitutional Republic” right? Can you explain in depth the difference?

I am amused that you think the two are separate; how dimwitted is that?

Can you produce my quotes that prove I “pretend” that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorist are not a threat to Liberty? I’ll understand if you can’t!

You're starting to sound and erupt like LegionTrollTard; you both are very similar in ignorance.

I see that you continue to "read" but fail at comprehension. Here is my statement; try to comprehend instead of divining a strawman out of it:

Because unlike you, AmeriKa should not bury its collective head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists are not a threat to Democracy, Liberty and our allies/alliances.

Do you believe that George Washington was an idiot when he said, “Commarce with all, entangling alliances with none?”

Another of your dumb uninformed claims and statements:

ENTANGLING ALLIANCES. Contrary to common belief, the phrase "entangling alliances" was turned by Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington. Washington advised against "permanent alliances," whereas Jefferson, in his inaugural address on 4 March 1801, declared his devotion to "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." It is a pet phrase of isolationists warning against foreign commitments.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401801392.html

We have to point out, that Washington never used the words "foreign entanglements" in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition," but he never used the exact words "foreign entanglements."

 

[Truth Detector]

should we have stayed in Nam?

We should have WON in Vietnam. That would mean going into the North and taking the war TO the Communists instead of trying to fight a purely defensive war. That would mean that if one is afraid of the Chinese doing what they did in Korea, making it clear to them that we will not back down and train the South Vietnam Army to invade while we defended their homeland.

That would mean that when we promise to come to the South's aid in the event the Communists broke their treaty, we actually come to their aid instead of abandoning them for the sake of public opinion.

That would mean that when we make treaties; we do not allow the enemy to keep 144,000 of their troops in South Vietnamese territory so that we can falsely claim to the low information voter we have made peace.

You cannot win a war by not fighting one. However, the American soldier NEVER lost a battle in Vietnam even in the face of overwhelming odds. We allowed the Communists to have the victory they could not obtain by burying our collective heads in the sand, ignoring the massive sacrifice made by 58,000 of our men and women thanks to the partisan buffoonery of Democratic politicians who were the one's that got us there in the first place.

what possible cost/benefit analysis did you do to come up with 'even if it's forever'?????

That is very simple; review history and find a time where victory meant running away from one's enemy or the enemies of freedom and liberty.

What was the cost of WWI by completely disarming and disengaging?

What was the cost of the Korean conflict by pulling out and disengaging?

What was the cost of Vietnam by pulling out and disengaging?

Only naïve gullible morons think that one can negotiate or reason with thugs, tyrants and despots and only morons think that one can fight tyranny by running away from it.

 

[Truth Detector]

I can't wait to read his answer to that. Oh! that's right he's one of those disappearing magicians when the questions get tough, huh?

Why? You don't have the intelligence to comprehend what is written anyway and will use your "idiot" filter for another of your predictable emotional eruptions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We should have WON in Vietnam. That would mean going into the North and taking the war TO the Communists instead of trying to fight a purely defensive war. That would mean that if one is afraid of the Chinese doing what they did in Korea, making it clear to them that we will not back down and train the South Vietnam Army to invade while we defended their homeland.

That would mean that when we promise to come to the South's aid in the event the Communists broke their treaty, we actually come to their aid instead of abandoning them for the sake of public opinion.

That would mean that when we make treaties; we do not allow the enemy to keep 144,000 of their troops in South Vietnamese territory so that we can falsely claim to the low information voter we have made peace.

You cannot win a war by not fighting one. However, the American soldier NEVER lost a battle in Vietnam even in the face of overwhelming odds. We allowed the Communists to have the victory they could not obtain by burying our collective heads in the sand, ignoring the massive sacrifice made by 58,000 of our men and women thanks to the partisan buffoonery of Democratic politicians who were the one's that got us there in the first place.



That is very simple; review history and find a time where victory meant running away from one's enemy or the enemies of freedom and liberty.

What was the cost of WWI by completely disarming and disengaging?

What was the cost of the Korean conflict by pulling out and disengaging?

What was the cost of Vietnam by pulling out and disengaging?

Only naïve gullible morons think that one can negotiate or reason with thugs, tyrants and despots and only morons think that one can fight tyranny by running away from it.

winning at all costs doesn't always provide the best solution. sadly, both you liberals and conservatives can't understand that bit of reality. is it a worthy victory if in the end it does nothing but destroy part of your nation?

 

[Truth Detector]

winning at all costs doesn't always provide the best solution.

Got strawmen? I cannot imagine how running away after the conflict has been engaged is a better solution. How did that work out for Korea, Vietnam or Iraq?

sadly, both you liberals and conservatives can't understand that bit of reality. is it a worthy victory if in the end it does nothing but destroy part of your nation?

I am amused that you think isolationism is a valid solution; what part of your bloviating suggests you even comprehend reality?

The only thing that is tearing apart this nation are Libertarian and leftist fools who still think one can reason, negotiate and talk with tyrants and that we can retreat behind our borders and leave global leadership up to Putin and the UN. The current occupant in the White House would rather engage in divisive dumb partisan rhetoric than honestly handle the situation.

How did pulling out of Iraq make things better for ANYONE?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Got strawmen? I cannot imagine how running away after the conflict has been engaged is a better solution. How did that work out for Korea, Vietnam or Iraq?

I am amused that you think isolationism is a valid solution; what part of your bloviating suggests you even comprehend reality?

talk about strawmen LOL, who said anything about isolationism? what i'm talking about is cost/benefit analysis. you obviously have no clue what that means.

The only thing that is tearing apart this nation are Libertarian and leftist fools who still think one can reason, negotiate and talk with tyrants and that we can retreat behind our borders and leave global leadership up to Putin and the UN. The current occupant in the White House would rather engage in divisive dumb partisan rhetoric than honestly handle the situation.

How did pulling out of Iraq make things better for ANYONE?

yes, lets lump 'libertarians' in with leftists because 'CONSERVATIVE'!!!!!!!!! where have your fucktard conservative politics gotten us except to be put under the boot of jacked up thugs wearing badges?

 

[zappasguitar]

As long as it takes even if it is FOREVER.

Because unlike you, AmeriKa should not bury its collective head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend that despots, dictators, tyrants and terrorists are not a threat to Democracy, Liberty and our allies/alliances.

Dimbulb Truth Rejector thinks the USA should be the world's police force from now until the end of time!

Yes folks, he IS THAT DUMB!

 

[Truth Detector]

talk about strawmen LOL, who said anything about isolationism? what i'm talking about is cost/benefit analysis. you obviously have no clue what that means.

Nothing more dimwitted than thinking one should provide a cost benefit analysis for war. Good lord, get that head out of your ass dude. You obviously don't have the slightest clue of what you are emotionally erupting and whining about.

yes, lets lump 'libertarians' in with leftists because 'CONSERVATIVE'!!!!!!!!!

Sorry if that makes you cry; but when you argue just like a dimwitted, clueless, peacenik leftTard, you just might get lumped in with them.

where have your fucktard conservative politics gotten us except to be put under the boot of jacked up thugs wearing badges?

Cry harder Alice.

 

[Truth Detector]

Dimbulb Truth Rejector thinks the USA should be the world's police force from now until the end of time!

Yes folks, he IS THAT DUMB!

I always have to laugh at a retard like you calling others dimb bulbs. Run along shit-for-brains; life's too short for your special brand of retard.

 

[Robo]

More dimwitted strawmen; you're quite full of them.

Oh! Then it wasn’t you that posted this?

As long as it takes even if it is FOREVER.

We don't engage in interventionism; we engage in defending liberty, our borders and our allies borders.

Which allies in the Middle East are we defending and why and what do those so-called allies do for us in return and how does our involvement in the Middle East ”defend our liberty and defend our borders? I’ll understand if you can’t explain.

I wish you had even the slightest clue of what you emotionally erupt about.

Such as? Explain please! I’ll understand if you can’t!

As for spending; I would rather see us spend on defense than the massive liberal efforts to re-distribute wealth in an effort to buy the votes of low information dumbfucks.

No matter how much waste, fraud and abuse is involved, right?

You mean like the “Prescription Drugs For Seniors,” “The Faith Based Initiative” that you voted for, right?

I am amused that you think the two are separate; how dimwitted is that?

Then you don’t know the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic, huh?

I’ll educate you Sir.,

A Democracy is a political system where a majority vote of the masses becomes and is enforced as the law of the land, i.e. “Mob Rule.”

A Constitutional Republic is a political system whereby representatives are democratically elected and sworn to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution and legislate in accordance with and enforce a Constitutional Rule Of Law, no matter what the mob would like to be enforced.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nothing more dimwitted than thinking one should provide a cost benefit analysis for war. Good lord, get that head out of your ass dude. You obviously don't have the slightest clue of what you are emotionally erupting and whining about.

and like a true conservative fucktard, you resort to ad homs because you don't like anyone shooting down your WAAARRRGAARRRBL.

fuck off, you anti-american idiot.

 

[Robo]

Dimbulb Truth Rejector thinks the USA should be the world's police force from now until the end of time!

Yes folks, he IS THAT DUMB!

He's right in tune with Hillary Clinton, huh?

 

[Truth Detector]

and like a true conservative fucktard, you resort to ad homs because you don't like anyone shooting down your WAAARRRGAARRRBL.

fuck off, you anti-american idiot.

He's right in tune with Hillary Clinton, huh?

 

[Robo]

Such a genius response!

 

[zappasguitar]

Oh no, Truth Rejector is butthurt yet again.

Don't be mad.

Everyone understands you can't possibly defend your ignorant belief that the USA should be the world's police force until the end of time, so the only course of action open to you is more petty name calling.