2009 August 19 Wednesday
Most Americans Oppose Afghanistan War

Most Americans oppose the war of the neoconservative hawk who occupies the Oval Office. But the evil Republicans in control of the White House insist on defying the popular will. If only the Democrats were in charge.

A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting, and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But seriously: If we spend the Afghanistan war money on anti-terrorism security agencies, securing our borders, deporting illegal aliens (especially Muslim illegal aliens), and if we changed immigration policy to end Muslim immigration this would do far more to reduce our risks of terrorist attack. These policies would cost far less than that war and actually deliver a real benefit.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 August 19 11:05 PM  MidEast Afghanistan


Comments
Curly said at August 20, 2009 6:18 AM:

"Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand…"
Barack Obama

dchamil said at August 20, 2009 6:43 AM:

The way to keep them from attacking us over here is to keep them over there. Islam is a political movement wearing the cloak of a religion. That's why it does not deserve the deference customarily afforded to religions. I advocate excluding Muslims from any political office. Such an exclusion is unconstitutional if Islam is deemed to be a religion only, but might pass muster if we recognize that it is not just a religion.

Matt@occidentalism.org said at August 20, 2009 7:19 AM:

Randall, if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here. (Seriously, I hate that particular slogan - that it works makes me feel contempt for the average person that seems to fall for it).

miles said at August 20, 2009 5:27 PM:

"But seriously: If we spend the Afghanistan war money on anti-terrorism security agencies, securing our borders, deporting illegal aliens (especially Muslim illegal aliens), and if we changed immigration policy to end Muslim immigration this would do far more to reduce our risks of terrorist attack. These policies would cost far less than that war and actually deliver a real benefit"


Amen. It could not be put any better than that, Miles

Randall Parker said at August 20, 2009 5:49 PM:

Curly,

So then we are sending US troops to Afghanistan to get foreign language experience. How did I miss that?

Wolf-Dog said at August 20, 2009 7:22 PM:

Cynos is a Greek Island. Cynics were a cult of Greek philosophers who saw the world as it is, instead of as it should be.

But seriously, the truth is that although only 5 % of the GDP is military, probably 10 % of the jobs depend on military spending one way or another. Although military Keynesianism is a bubble similar to the real estate bubble (can be rated as a form of malinvestment in equal measure), politically it is not easy to dismantle that bubble. However, if the current president feels that he is already losing the elections in 3 years, then at that time just before the elections, he would dismantle the military machine to trigger a time bomb of massive unemployment to make the next government look bad.

Curly said at August 21, 2009 6:59 AM:

No Randall, I think the soldiers should have more knowledge of the language and culture of the country they are trying to "democretize". I think the president's quote is clear enough, for us to understand it in its full depth. I even like it, because it makes sense. It implies that it probably would've been a good idea for the soldiers to have been given at least a few basic Afghani or Arab expressions... They would probably do a better job thus
While the rest of the world knows the U.S. too well and speaks English -besides their own language-, we have become mentally lazy and wanting everybody to speak our language and to acquire the way of life we call "democracy". However, we don't seem to be doing so well at home at the moment, do we?

Curly said at August 21, 2009 7:08 AM:

I think Obama's quote is true. Knowledge will always be an advantage, a weapon -if you will- for which ever purpose we have. Knowledge. It will always be better to speak two languages instead of one; three instead of one. It will always be better to know a foreign culture instead of ignoring its characteristics while we are in it.
I'm sorry I'm just in that other half who still trusts Obama's decisions. He was democratically elected and we should let the man do his job, specially if he has been in office not for long. Let's give the man some space.
Cheers 'n' peace.

Sage said at August 21, 2009 7:57 PM:

The Roman empire fell because the ruling class paid for perpetual war by debasing the currency. The "rich" merchants had to pay taxes in gold, while the government issued fiat silver coins. The silver content kept getting less and less, and eventually the coins were bronze dipped in silver. Meanwhile, the troops were paid in gold and the goverment paid themselves in gold. The practical result was that people were economically forced off of their land due to taxes (pay govt in scarce gold), and the people became serfs to the economic system. The empire eventually crumbled to the invading Barbarians, as the Roman population was sick of their rulers. Those rulers had stolen the average citizens freedom. The Barbarians were seen as better than the Roman Rulers. The people did not resist the invaders.

Existential war is necessary, but all wars have tremendous costs. The Vietnam war, along with the Great Society, caused the stagflation of the 70's. WW1 and the Federal reserve ushered in the Great Depression. War reparations demanded of Germany after WW1 led the Weimar govt to inflate the currency to pay off debts. Those debts saddled on Germany by France and Britain exceeded the entire wealth of Germany. The war, the inflation, the collapse, so traumatized the German people they were willing to take a chance on a demagog like Hitler. Idiots like Woodrow Wilson helped usher in WW2 and much of the current progressive structures now in place in the U.S.

History is replete with Government abusing the economic systems in order to self agrandize themselves. Government has self preservation instincts, and Government leaders often become warped in their thinking...they become Kings,or even God like to their own narcisstic eyes. Let them eat cake. Fiat money, aka the U.S. Federal Reserve system, goes hand in hand with war making. It is easy for Govt leaders to enter into wars, and pay for said wars with inflation dollars. The end result is that Americans end up poorer due to inflation, or collapsing value of money. The war costs will be paid, one way or another. The U.S. government grew even during the Reagan years...all he could do was slow down the rate of growth. Eventually we will have the same fate as the Roman Empire.

mike said at August 21, 2009 8:39 PM:

"if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here"

The pro-interventionists said the same thing about the war in Vietnam. In the end the fall on Vietnam did little to advance the cause of global communism, but the cost of intervention did wonders for Asian nationalist capitalism at the expense of the U.S. and French economies.

Sage, nice point, when the populace lose faith in their own government, they also lose the will to repel foreign invaders.

Valkyrie said at August 22, 2009 8:38 AM:

Matt,

"Randall, if we don't fight them over there we will have to fight them over here. (Seriously, I hate that particular slogan - that it works makes me feel contempt for the average person that seems to fall for it)."

Many muslims went to afghanistan at the beginning of the war and fight the US, same with iraq, those people are the same ones that would fly airplanes into US skyscrapers.

Now you could argue the US 'creates' more of these by defending itself, or that the economic cost may not be worth it, but it's something you could easily dismiss.

If the US just packs up and leaves afghanistan, it would be a pathetic defeat of a superpower by a handful of ragtag losers and pajamas and klashnikovs. Such a defeat would be a game changer, and the US would be a lot less safe. Of course there's no way of 'winning' in afghanistan so who knows what the hell is the right course of action, at least getting bin laden would offer some closure but the fucker's gone.

averros said at August 23, 2009 2:03 AM:

> If we spend the Afghanistan war money on anti-terrorism security agencies, securing our borders, deporting illegal aliens

"We?" No, you propose to spend *my* money on the idiocies of your choice.

I, for once, do not think terrists are a threat (they didn't manage to blow any of undefendable public venues in *years* and, given millions of illegals going back and forth through "our" borders it's truly easy for any real terrist to get in). Securing borderes? Did you ever hear about the East Germany and Soviet Iron Curtain? Fat load of good they did. "Deporting illegal aliens" - yeah, truly smart. To catch them you have to have full-blown police state for everybody, including your precious self.

How about spending your own money on "anti-terrorism security agencies" and other police-state activities?

Dumbass said at August 23, 2009 4:54 PM:

"Deporting illegal aliens" - yeah, truly smart. To catch them you have to have full-blown police state for everybody, including your precious self.


You're joking, right? To think that catching and deporting illegals requires a police state is asinine.

Randall Parker said at August 23, 2009 5:02 PM:

averros,

Eisenhower deported most of the illegal aliens from Mexico in the 1950s very rapidly and without creating a police state.

Iron Curtain: There's a difference between a barrier designed to keep people in and a barrier designed to keep people out. But the Iron Curtain did very efficiently keep in the Eastern Europeans. Few made it across. The Iron Curtain didn't come down until the USSR collapsed. So I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make.

Curly said at August 25, 2009 6:25 AM:

"Deporting illegal aliens"
Sure! and then the prices of food will go so high, people won't know what hit 'em.
Many don't seem to realize how much the U.S. needs those considered second-class humans...
If our economy is bad is not because of the illegal immigrants.
Maybe I'm an idealist, but I stand by the consideration that no human being is "illegal".

Big Bill said at August 27, 2009 5:06 AM:

Curly, when prices for labor get too high, we automate and reduce costs. When Eisenhower threw out the illegals, the California growers did exactly that. We did not run out of food or starve in the 1950's we did quite well!

The farmworkers are much more expensive than machines. Their employers force us to pay the added costs for their medical care, crime prevention, schools and the like. They could make cheaper food working on farms in Mexico. Anyway, most of the illegals in this country are not working on farms in California, they are building houses, among other things. Americans are willing to do those jobs. Americans did them all until 25 years ago. Americans are willing to do the farm work. Always have been. They just don't want to do it for wages that will require them to go on welfare to care for their families. Do tyou really believethatA

The reality is that employers want to drive down wages by using cheap peasants from around the world. The result will be to make us as poor as the peasants they are bringing in to drive down wages. Look at China. Look at Mexico. They are poor because htey are explouted by theirrich folks. And now our rich folks want to bring them here to exploit them and drive us into poverty as well.

As far as "no human being is illegal", what exactly do you mean? That America should make the entire world "legal". To let everyone in the world come here and live if they feel like it? Do you realize that there are over 5 billion people poorer than Mexican illegals? That they would crawl over broken glass to get into America? Do you want to pay for them,Curly? Think of it this way: Haitians have an average income of about $1000 a year. No medical care. No schools. they could come to America and live like a king off welfare alone! Do you really want to legalize the world?

Curly said at August 27, 2009 3:13 PM:

Big Bill, So, how come we don't seem to live better? Why is it that we do not have a higher standard of living? The rest of the world is tired and worn out from propping our way of living... and we keep borrowing, spending and living the good life as if that were limitless. Nothing lasts forever and we all know there's no such a thing as a free ride.

And even though you type as you have traveled abroad much(?), no Big Bill, not everyone in the world wants to come and live in the U.S. and believing that is simply narcisistic. The world is a little more than the U.S. of A. There are lots, lots of people in other countries who live better and happier than lots and lots of people in the U.S. -Just take a look around your own town nowadays- "5 billion poorer than illegal Mexicans"...? mmmm I'm not sure about that. Maybe, but I try not to be too dogmatic.

Also, what do you mean "Do you want to pay for them..." Pay for who? Everybody in the U.S. pay taxes, rent, mortgages, gas, electricity, telephone, groceries whether they be legal or illegal -perhaps this is news to you- or is it that there is even one American who hasn't heard the expression "Nothing is sure but death and taxes"?

I respectfully have to disagree with you, but
Peace and Greetings


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©