The Brotherhood is running Egypt? I don't recall that.

 

You can recall it now Clyde, hate to say I told you so.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/egypts-parliament-to-be-led-by-islamist/2012/01/16/gIQASabE3P_story.html

The mission was to get Osama and Al Queda, we still have to get the next man now. We must keep them on the run or they will run over to the U.S.

 

It's an endless war.

 

What's the clear objective in the Middle-East, Mountain Ref? is there even an obvious goal? or one that is attainable?

The goal I hope is to keep the terrorist at bay, is the goals attainable, absolutely no way

The mission will never be over, especially over in Afghanistan adn Pakistan, as well as Sudan

 

I would be very concerned with the well-being of United State's citizens (and humanity in general) if somehow you became POTUS. Nuke'm all Mountain Ref.

The goal I hope is to keep the terrorist at bay, is the goals attainable, absolutely no way

 

Then why keep doing the same thing? If we cannot reach our goal. That is the definition of insanity.

 

What is wrong with peace negotiations? or are they too irrational? If so (bolded), then find common ground (maybe impossible but why not make an intense effort) and negotiate a compromise.

You can't negotiate with terrorist, if you give in once, then you have to do it again.

 

We keep doing the same thing, Iran is next on the list.

What does this mean?

 

 

"This is a one-day agreement for the day the parliament opens," Mohamed Aboul Ghar, leader of the Social Democratic Party, said after the meeting. "We have to cooperate so the main posts in the parliament will be distributed fairly.... Even the small parties and those with only one seat will not be excluded."

That is what THEY say, don't be so neieve as to believe them

And Clyde as bad as I hate to say it, I love arguing with you, it is one of my highlights of the day, you keep my blood pumping and you do have some really good points and arguments, I just think sometimes you are wrong, as I am a lot of times

That is what THEY say, don't be so neieve as to believe them

 

I'm usually not naive. I just don't get the "one day" thing.

IMO, the one day deal is just a ploy to show they are willing to get along, which is just a ploy because this will happen

 

 

Final results of the elections are expected this week, but party projections and early returns show that Islamists are expected to take about two-thirds of the seats, most of which will go to the political wing of the historic Muslim Brotherhood organization.

Anyone who thinks the Brotherhood is not a threat to any kind of democracy in the middle east is kidding their selves...

First, I would hate to live in fear and have all these far fetched theories, or believing all of them!

 

But, onto the topic thread. TOUGH! They can say all they want, and many in the U.S. now say we should leave, BUT it will NOT happen! The head of the snake is dead, but the rest of the snake is still moving! We know al qaeda is based in that area, why give them the entire region? If we are there, they have to try and hide, it's MUCH harder for them to work under these conditions! Keep them on the run!

 

I wish you would have went with, "NUTS!" haha!

I think you are probably correct. But at what point do you say, "no more soldier deaths" and "no more spending $1 billion a month." I'm not sure what the best answer it.

 

In some situations, you can't say "no more". We still have troops in S. Korea, Germany, Japan and other areas of the world long after the conflicts in those areas have ended. Why? Because we believe a presence is needed to protect our national interests and also to serve as a deterrent to future, costly wars. I believe we need to continue to have a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though Bin Laden is gone. Soldier deaths? Believe me, I am not being callous when I say this, but military members dying is inevitable. We would have military members dying if every one of them was stationed on US soil. Serving in the military is dangerous regardless of whether we are at war or at peace. During my active duty (a time of peace), I regularly investigated the deaths of Marines killed during training exercises. I fully realize that more military members die in times of war than peace, but pulling out of Afghanistan will not result in no more soldier deaths. It could ultimately result in more soldier deaths if we pull out, al Quada rebuilds, and we are forced to go back there to do once again what we have already accomplished. If that was to occur, I'd think that it would mean that all the military deaths that have already occurred in Afghanistan would have been in vain and have been wasted. Hopefully this country never again does what it did often in Vietnam: take a hill at large loss of life, just to abandon the hill shortly thereafter, and then retake the hill once again with another large loss of life. Either the hill is important enough to take and keep or it shouldn't have been taken to begin with. If destroying al Quada was important enough for the US to have committed its military members to war there, we should stay on that hill until we are certain that al Quada is destroyed to the point it cannot rebuild in Afghanistan.

 

I do believe that if we believe that the Afghan govt can capably govern that country and has a strong enough will and military to prevent al Quada from rebuilding, we should pull out. However, I don't believe the Afghan govt is anywhere near close to being able to do so at this point.

 

As for the spending issue, I'm a little more symphathetic to your point. History is filled with countries, regimes, and empires that have been brought down by the excessive costs (financial, social and othewise) of engaging in distant and long drawn out wars. What our leaders have to ask themselves repeatedly (and we should too) is whether the cost of not engaging in war will eventually exceed the savings. Pulling out of Afghanistan would no doubt save money initially, but if our absence would permit al Quada to reorganize and operate freely there, the costs to America in the form of terrorist attacks on our soil or in the form of energy costs if the oil supply from the middle East was negatively impacted, for example, may dramatically exceed the savings we realize by pulling out. Being at war is a very complex issue that goes way beyond military deaths and the dollars spent to wage war.

In some situations, you can't say "no more". We still have troops in S. Korea, Germany, Japan and other areas of the world long after the conflicts in those areas have ended. Why? Because we believe a presence is needed to protect our national interests and also to serve as a deterrent to future, costly wars. I believe we need to continue to have a presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though Bin Laden is gone. Soldier deaths? Believe me, I am not being callous when I say this, but military members dying is inevitable. We would have military members dying if every one of them was stationed on US soil. Serving in the military is dangerous regardless of whether we are at war or at peace. During my active duty (a time of peace), I regularly investigated the deaths of Marines killed during training exercises. I fully realize that more military members die in times of war than peace, but pulling out of Afghanistan will not result in no more soldier deaths. It could ultimately result in more soldier deaths if we pull out, al Quada rebuilds, and we are forced to go back there to do once again what we have already accomplished. If that was to occur, I'd think that it would mean that all the military deaths that have already occurred in Afghanistan would have been in vain and have been wasted. Hopefully this country never again does what it did often in Vietnam: take a hill at large loss of life, just to abandon the hill shortly thereafter, and then retake the hill once again with another large loss of life. Either the hill is important enough to take and keep or it shouldn't have been taken to begin with. If destroying al Quada was important enough for the US to have committed its military members to war there, we should stay on that hill until we are certain that al Quada is destroyed to the point it cannot rebuild in Afghanistan.

 

I do believe that if we believe that the Afghan govt can capably govern that country and has a strong enough will and military to prevent al Quada from rebuilding, we should pull out. However, I don't believe the Afghan govt is anywhere near close to being able to do so at this point.

 

As for the spending issue, I'm a little more symphathetic to your point. History is filled with countries, regimes, and empires that have been brought down by the excessive costs (financial, social and othewise) of engaging in distant and long drawn out wars. What our leaders have to ask themselves repeatedly (and we should too) is whether the cost of not engaging in war will eventually exceed the savings. Pulling out of Afghanistan would no doubt save money initially, but if our absence would permit al Quada to reorganize and operate freely there, the costs to America in the form of terrorist attacks on our soil or in the form of energy costs if the oil supply from the middle East was negatively impacted, for example, may dramatically exceed the savings we realize by pulling out. Being at war is a very complex issue that goes way beyond military deaths and the dollars spent to wage war.

 

Just a quick note. This is an example of why I don't give up on P/R on BGP, even if I get exasperated in other threads. LN, much of what you said has made me vastly reconsider my stance on troops in Afghanistan.