Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The question is what do we do now, do the American people want to send in US troops to fight a war for Syria & Iraq. Why is this our fight, why should we send soldiers off to die in a battle that has nothing to do with us.
So what--McCain has always had his own agenda and foreign policy. He would still have the war going if it were up to him, plus we'd have troops all over the mideast. How about the fact that we cannot afford to be in a war? Who would we have borrowed money from in order to have kept the war going?
Lastly, if ten years of US military Iraqi occupation and hundreds of billions of dollars did not stop a group like the ISIS from forming, than what makes anyone think more military action is going to do it or prevent yet another group from coming in? Perhaps the way to solve it is not by military means.
When all is said and done and long term veteran benefits and interest on the war debt are factored in, we are looking at $4 -6 Trillion in incremental debt since 2003 for a war that was supposed to be over in weeks.
We could simply decline to engage and close our embassies in that region. Or, as Mc Cain this could be a 100 year initiative.
The US is being goaded to engage. And perhaps the real plan is very simple, bleed the US financially dry.
So what--McCain has always had his own agenda and foreign policy. He would still have the war going if it were up to him, plus we'd have troops all over the mideast. How about the fact that we cannot afford to be in a war? Who would we have borrowed money from in order to have kept the war going?
The question I have for people that think Obama should have left troops is "if the countries leaders want troops to leave we should stay against their will?" Is that a good example of spreading democracy and freedom?
The politifacts article pointed out that it's not clear what the Iraqi gov't wanted or didn't want as far as troops being left there.
1) Leave US troops in Iraq for what?
2) For how long?
Obama's thinking should have been to leave residual troops in Iraq until at least his presidency was over to deter any possible coups aimed at the new gov't. Then the next president could decide what to do with those troops based on the circumstances in Iraq.
The politifacts article pointed out that it's not clear what the Iraqi gov't wanted or didn't want as far as troops being left there.
Maybe this article did n't but we all know the story where Maliki wanted the U S to sign the SOFA agreement or leave. I have not heard any stories where Iraqi leadership was begging us to stay. All the flair ups in the ME are the result of U S meddling and toppling of other countries leadership.
I really don't know. We obviously cannot afford it, but I do not hear any fiscal conservatives other than Rand Paul speaking up to point this out. And he's getting all kinds of flack within the fiscally conservative Republican party for not wanting to re-engage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
