To the person who said it is ridiculous to pull out of Afghanistan, I think not. We have no business being there for all the reasons that have been trumpeted in the last few weeks. The idea that the Taliban, once again in control, will allow Al Qaeda to again flourish is not certain. Why would they put their country in constant conflict with the rest of the world by supporting Bin Laden and his followers again? It is very unlikely and the claim that they would support Al Qaeda once they regain power is pure speculation. I am speculating also but I think mine makes more sense.

We shamelessly pulled out of Vietnam under a worthless treaty with the North. When the last helicopter left the the roof of the Embassy, the Viet Cong were in control. There were all kinds of disastrous predictions at the time, but they didn't come to pass. As a matter of fact the US grew stronger and the Soviet Union went out of business.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan we should abandon those fights and institute a new policy of non intervention in the sovereign affairs of others. We should take war out of the equation unless we are directly attacked by a sovereign power. There are many other ways we can pressure nations into doing what is in the best interest of our country. We can no longer afford to fight wars. Bush practically bankrupted the United States over this foolishness. The money is better spent at home.

If asked if that means war is off the table, I would respond, yes, war is off the table.

"There were all kinds of disastrous predictions at the time, but they didn't come to pass."

Yep. Life in South Vietnam was just dandy after that; in fact, the whole region has been beer and skittles ever since that chopper took off.

"In both Iraq and Afghanistan we should abandon those fights and institute a new policy of non intervention in the sovereign affairs of others. We should take war out of the equation unless we are directly attacked by a sovereign power. There are many other ways we can pressure nations into doing what is in the best interest of our country. We can no longer afford to fight wars. Bush practically bankrupted the United States over this foolishness. The money is better spent at home."

I agree 100%. The best way to pressure these nations is to focus on our own domestic manufacturing, high technology research, especially pushing the "green jobs" and alternate energy sources to maximum; and ensuring that all of our military services are state of the art down to the freshest skin head out of boot camp. We can be the best at anything we set our minds to. So many people in this country whine that alternate energy supplies like solar, wind and geothermal are not reliable. "Well the sun goes down! Then what?" The nuke or hydro or wind or geothermal or etc...kicks in. Keep our money here. Quit supplying money for guns, ammo and golden toilet seats to the frikkin Saudi's so they can fund schools that teach their kids that murder, genocide, and suicide is good. We can reduce the need for oil drastically within 8 years and nearly eliminate it as a source of transportation and home heating within 20 years or less if we make the committment to do it versus wasting our sons and daughters lives, our treasure and precious time in any senseless skirmish.

"But what about the terrorist threat?" Ask GW Bush. He's the one who abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden long before any campaigning began for the last election. Bin Laden loudly proclaimed his cursed presence in the world since 9-11-01 and now the bastard can't take a shit without looking over his shoulder. Let the spies do their work. Right now the terrorists can see their enemy, Us, and know where to hit us any time they wish. Pull out. Let our intelligence agencies work hand in hand with our allies in rooting them out and hitting their asses by surprise. We've got the most sophisticated spy satellite system on the planet...or should I say off the planet? Let's keep it up and use it with our special forces and attack drones. You don't think those satellites can spot poppy or coca fields from space? Send in the drones. Improve the drones. Perfect and maintain the technological advantage of having the best drones on Earth, all equipped with total self destruct in the event of malfunctions.

Take away their targets and they'll start to feed off each other.

Yea,,,this policy worked so well in 1941............

If we just close our eyes everything will magically go away and will be left alone.

Are you comparing AQ to the Axis in WWII? How paranoid can you be? Spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined does not strike me as "fiscal conservatism", does it to you?

Ahhh, there's Sicko with the interminable "World War-II analogy".

BTW, SOL, shouldn't that be "1938" and "Munich" and "Neville Chamberlain"????

OldGaffer:

Are you comparing AQ to the Axis in WWII? How paranoid can you be? Spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined does not strike me as "fiscal conservatism", does it to you?

Ask them (those like Sicko) if we should do EVERYTHING like WWII?....i.e. raise taxes....rationing....institut­e a draft....oversee corporate production and form Senate committes to stop profiteering....etc.

Suddenly they don't WANT to be the "2nd Greatest Generation" anymore and it's NOT "just like World War-II".

Sure, why work smart and build our country back up when we can continue to drag our feet, lose lives, money and time in some third world shit hole that the Soviets couldn't even control under even more brutal circumstances?

Well, tough guy, why should we waste our lives, money and time on these rag head punks when we should be waging a real war against our greatest enemies; North Korea, Red China and Venezuela? They pose a greater threat than the Soviet Union did. And anything these little middle eastern podunk holes throw at us is target practice by your standards.

But we would have to wage a real World War, just like the Democrats did in 1941 [and won, by the way] and it is likely that your sorry ass would have to serve even if you are gay. I bet you'd be the first one on the train to Ontario.

....as a substitute for reality, eh?

In fact, Viet Nam isn't that badly off nowadays, having followed the Chinese model established by Deng Xiaoping and gotten wealthier and more successful.

At the very least, they were better off not to have bombs, napalm, and Agent Orange constantly raining on their cities and their people.

...and the fucking Taliban ain't the Japanese. Wise up.

OldGaffer:

Are you comparing AQ to the Axis in WWII? How paranoid can you be? Spending more on our military than the rest of the world combined does not strike me as "fiscal conservatism", does it to you?

No jackass I'm comparing this "isolationist" idea to that of our mindset prior to WWII.

Take away their targets and they'll start to feed off each other.

It's not how the world works and it certaintly not how the war we are fighting works. Go ahead and click your heels together if it makes you feel better.

Liberal Patriot:

Sure, why work smart and build our country back up when we can continue to drag our feet, lose lives, money and time in some third world shit hole that the Soviets couldn't even control under even more brutal circumstances?

Well, tough guy, why should we waste our lives, money and time on these rag head punks when we should be waging a real war against our greatest enemies; North Korea, Red China and Venezuela? They pose a greater threat than the Soviet Union did. And anything these little middle eastern podunk holes throw at us is target practice by your standards.

But we would have to wage a real World War, just like the Democrats did in 1941 [and won, by the way] and it is likely that your sorry ass would have to serve even if you are gay. I bet you'd be the first one on the train to Ontario.

Wow,,,such tough talk,,,better becareful they might toss you out of that hip cofee shop you are typing from Sally. "Rag head punks".....this from the guy who thinks we can fight this war with "robots"......fuck off shithead you can't even fool yourself.

Given how easily you skip over the odd decade or two in your chamber-of-commerce gloss of the history of SE Asia, you're not in much of a position to chide me about "reality."

'No jackass I'm comparing this "isolationist" idea to that of our mindset prior to WWII."

Isolationist? By what metric? NATO? Check. UN? Check. Plus a plethora of other Alliances and Treaties world wide would seem to defrock your "isolationist" statement completely. Pseudo-intellectual parroting of Neocon talking points leaves you looking like the half educated ideologue in this discussion.

"In both Iraq and Afghanistan we should abandon those fights and institute a new policy of non intervention in the sovereign affairs of others. We should take war out of the equation unless we are directly attacked by a sovereign power. There are many other ways we can pressure nations into doing what is in the best interest of our country. We can no longer afford to fight wars. "

Isolationist? By what metric? NATO? Check. UN? Check. Plus a plethora of other Alliances and Treaties world wide would seem to defrock your "isolationist" statement completely.

Tell me if the first quoted remarks are true (judging by your response I am assuming you agree) what good are those Alliances, Treaties, UN and NATO if we are no longer going to fight wars unless directly attacked.

My guess is not worth the paper they are written on.