Needs to STOP!!!

Sgt.SID

Sgt.SID

Registered User
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
2,688
Age
47
We have children going to bed without
food..... Elderly going without needed medicines..... Mentally ill
without treatment..... Troops without proper equipment..... Yet we
donate millions to other countries before helping our own first......
Why is this?
 
Sgt.SID said:
We have children going to bed without
food..... Elderly going without needed medicines..... Mentally ill
without treatment..... Troops without proper equipment..... Yet we
donate millions to other countries before helping our own first......
Why is this?
Click to expand...
at least they have health care
 
Its really needs to stop! But then thay blame people for not voting....what about the people that did and new this ass was no good. The fucker should do his job for the people and what right for them. Not some people that can care less about us and in no way ever pay us back. What by helping them out and getting so and so back on thier feet that SOME day their going to do something for us. Well do something for US!
 
It's been that way since when my parents were kids. Our country will take care others but won't help their own here.
 
Gee, maybe all we need is hope and change and someone to "press the reset button" with other countries so that everyone will love and respect us... how naive. I agree, let the other countries fend for themselves.
 
A great deal of the people that are in dire straits here in the US have an opportunity to get a job that doesn't pay 10 cents a day. They would just rather collect money from the government that they took from me to pay for useless moochers. Yeah, there are probably a lot of people out there here in the United States that are hungry or living in inadequate shelter, but I guarantee you its better than a shack in Namibia, sharing the space with Tsetse flies and twelve brothers and sisters. I am not justifying the misuse of funds, both philanthropic and governmental, but I am stating that a lot of these people create their own problems.

Let's take a look at some of the said problems, shall we? Not finishing high school is a big one. Hard to get a job above McDonald's without proper education. Another issue? Having kids before you are ready. I'm not talking about teenage pregnancy. That is an accident. That's kids whose parents did not properly teach them the consequences of their actions ahead of time. I am talking about having four or five kids with your significant other when you make minimum wage. Why in the world are you breeding if you can barely afford to feed yourself? Get off your back, get your legs out of the air, and focus on furthering yourself before you pop out eight or nine kids when you can't afford to feed your existing family.

Troops without proper equipment. That pisses me off. The improperly equipped HMMWV's at the beginning of the Iraq War and Afghanistan is inexcusable. If you want to blame anyone for that fiasco, it's congress. They are the ones who approve the funding our military gets. If you are fed up with people failing to give our men and women in harm's way proper equipment, tell your representatives and senators. If they don't want to listen, tell other voters about it, rally, and VOTE THEM OUT. A politician listens when their power is threatened. And if they don't, it doesn't matter. They'll be replaced with someone who listens to their constituents.

I may have more to say later, but for now this will have to do. I have to go eat Mexican food for lunch with the missus.
 
Last edited:
It's more like billions and has been a staple of American foreign policy since our industrialization began to demand markets and resources from territory beyond the United States, and is nothing more than sensible policy. The fundamental job of government is to ensure the safety and stability of its people, and that demands making friends throughout the world and sacrificing something to guarantee those friends (or at least non-enemies), trade routes, resources, and markets around the world. The total of our current foreign aid is relatively low from a modern history standpoint and is something that varies more on world conditions than the individual leaders and their parties.

Is foreign aid something that should really stop? If we go isolationist and remove ourself from the world stage then other countries will fill that vacuum, and the destabilizing effect of that for the United States could be dire. Do we really want China to take an exponentially larger role in the world and secure enough markets to make the US not as critical to their success? Do we want to facilitate the growth of morons like Chavez and countries that harbor historically expansionist and anti-American sentiment? That would be directly undermining the ability of the United States to maintain its economic and therefore social and political stability. This topic has little to do with our current president and more to do with broader historical forces and current trends. Foreign involvement is a must; the question is what path to follow.

The paths blazed in the post Cold War era are divergent. Clinton pursued a hodge podge of issues without any clear cut goals and criteria for aid/involvement/expectations. That is a mistake because other countries must know the rules of the game in order to play. With Bush II we had an idealistic foreign policy that was removed from reality and embodied the ugly American. The former led to more questions than answers; the latter rampant anti-Americanism that is bad for stability. Both of these foreign policy approaches I consider failures, though the policies of Bush I believe have put us in a position where we have to take a lot of flak for a long time to regain our footing in the world. For what its worth I also think the idea of using our military to invade a country that we had isolated diplomatically and militarily in a preemptive fashion was a mistake. I think the actual implementation was almost criminal and a thorough hack job that put our military in a position to fail, and the reasons are numerous and the blame broad.

You may disagree with me on this, but if you look at world powers that go isolationist throughout history the track record is poor. Now I need to go eat barbecue.
 
By the way, when I say fail I am not talking about military operation as much as the ability to achieve its goals in a timely fashion with a strategic vision that will put out troops individually and our country as a whole in the best possible position. And engaging in a conflict with unrealistic goals without providing the proper funding/resources to achieve stated goals is putting our country in a position to fail. If you have a country that is seen as a threat isolated and it is withering, why invest hundreds of billions and jeopardize the lives of soldiers and civilians in that theater as well as weakening the strategic position of our country as a whole? That money would be better spent on domestic programs and foreign aid that would build ties as opposed to weakening them.
 
Agreed Chuck. We spend money other places to secure trade and allies.

Also, anyone heard this quote before? "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country". JFK had it right. If the government just gave out money to everyone who wanted some and refused to work, we'd be bankrupt. Oh wait... we are. We live in the richest country in the world. There is work to be had. People just want to live beyond their means and don't keep to a budget.
 
Boondokk said:
Agreed Chuck. We spend money other places to secure trade and allies.

Also, anyone heard this quote before? "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country". JFK had it right. If the government just gave out money to everyone who wanted some and refused to work, we'd be bankrupt. Oh wait... we are. We live in the richest country in the world. There is work to be had. People just want to live beyond their means and don't keep to a budget.
Click to expand...

@ Chuck:

Keep in mind that our military (Army) is a volunteer professional force, consisting of of about 145,000 ground units, which are primarily service and support units (about 60% if not more) who are currently deployed. Now the rest of our contingent combat arms forces, have been given the follow tasks:

1. Eliminate a hostile non-state actor force of an undefined size, with plentiful financial and HR resources being drawn from 3 or more Islamic nations within the region

2. Fight that Fanatical Islamic non-state actor force in TWO countries, one consisting of 55% mountains.

3. Win the hearts and minds of the local tribal leaders, community religious leaders, and local populace.

4. Stabilize the region by preventing an insurgency **COUGH**, Train a national police force, Rebuild 90% of their nation's infrastructure that isnt already blown up. Get their people to elect a Democratic government who they wont argue every fucking minute detail with. Ensure that the new "Government" actually can support their own fucking people. Make sure that you try to minimize the violence of the civil war being waged within their religious sectors. Listen to the Kurds bitch, Dont piss off the Sunni's , Don't piss off the Shiites, Baby sit the Iraqi and afghan national Police forces. Baby sit the Civilian Private Military Contractors.


Oh and uh, by the way:

-Its 140+ degrees every fucking day
-The people don't speak English or anything related to it.
-They hate people who arn't muslim
-The Bad guys don't play fair
-They will try to blow you up with
-They hide IEDs and EFPs in EVERYTHING, even their own dead.
-They wear no uniform
-They will torture you if they catch you.
-They cut your head off if they catch you.


try to do all of this in about a 15 month deployment. After you leave another Division will roll in to releave you, and most likely fuck up all of the progress you made, but not always.


Thats a ton of shit for our military to do in 2 countries that have been raped pillaged and burned by nearly every civilization in human history who rolled deep in the Arabian Peninsula and Hindu Kush.

Given all of that, the size of our military, and the limit of our current resources supported by congress. we have done a KICK ASS JOB.

(Rant initiated) and I am sick and tired of other people (not you Chuck) calling OIF and OEF, the GWOT and what have you a failure. They lack the grand perspective to see what Uncle Sam has required of America's sons and daughters to actually look at the progress we have made

why they sit idley back at fucking starbucks or nose deep in the New York Times and drink each other cool-aid about how "America has failed militarily, and how "Iraq and the Stan are like Vietnam : wasting our valuable resources, when they could be used else where". like fueling a fucking communist presidents agenda to dish out entitlement checks and health care to every degenerate in America while everyone in the US who works for a living gets hit with the FUCK YOU on their paycheck courtesy of Czar Obama and Queen Nancy.
(Rant disengaged)

Aside from my ranting, Boon I agree with you people should only be entitled the paycheck that they earned and worked for. I am sure that John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson would roll in their graves if they could see the course of action that our current administration is taking.



as far as being prepared for the War:

Unfortunately I don't make the calls for what our conventional fighting forces need for success in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. However maybe some day down the road God willing and a few stars on my shoulder I will. We have the ability to fashion the resources to have military success anywhere in the world. however in the old, selfish and agenda driven minds of congress we never will and never shall, not until the Russians, Chinese or aliens are knocking doors of capital hill with the butt stocks of their rifles
 
Last edited:
That's one of the reasons I can't stand living in Cali.
 
That is what I was afraid of Lex. I did not say anything about our military but rather was framing a larger problem we face and using our current involvements to illustrate a point about foreign policy. In fact I think you supported my argument; the task given to our military in Afghanistan was originally difficult in the extreme. Had we stuck to that mission and used other forces (which are inevitably financial - based) then that mission would have been more manageable. However, couple that with convoluted goals and lack of planning along with a spreading of force and you have a situation where the military is set up to fail, not succeed.

One thing you mention is our volunteer military. Being a volunteer force it must market itself, and it is tough to market a brand that is being pulled thin. I am a historian Lex, and one that focuses on broad forces of social development. My point is if we use foreign policy/aid correctly, then our military is in a position to succeed if it is needed by having clear, focused goals with a limited theater to operate in so that it can use overwhelming resources to tackle those problems. Thus foreign aid, when applied appropriately, helps strengthen our nation. Our poverty/hunger rate is low for the type of economic system we enjoy. Do we need to pay attention to domestic issues? Absolutely, but the role of government is multi-faceted and you cannot work on domestic social problems in a vacuum; they must be tackled while keeping the country stable and prosperous because without the latter we cannot achieve anything in the realm of the former.
 
Add nuclear proliferation to the list of things that needs to stop.
 
How could Iraq have threatened us there? And I am not being condescending, it's just a point I have not heard before. It's not likely Iraq and Iran would join to weaken us in Afghanistan, and it was not the Afghan mission that hurt us significantly in terms of foreign policy. Again, my emphasis is the role that foreign policy plays in the stability of our government. An over reliance on the military aspect of foreign policy is counter productive in terms of long range strategic goals, thus engagement in nations and the subsequent financial burdens are necessary, and a whole lot less expensive in both financial and and human costs. And I do not mean engage every idiot leader and those nations that are a direct threat; you engage those that have a vested interest in seeing them weakened. I am an old school admirer of Bismark. Set your adversary up, isolate them, them destroy them if necessary. But if it is necessary then they are isolated and at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Again, by fail I am not talking about overall failure but rather a dragging out of the mission, and the longer an engagement the more taxing it is and the greater the opportunity for secondary issues to develop.

I suppose my question is this: from the word go, do you believe the military was put in the best position we could have placed it or could we have utilized greater diplomacy to set the stage better? If the answer is we could have set the stage better, then foreign aid is a must. Diplomacy is not just getting people to agree with you, but sometimes just to keep them quiet for a bit.
 
Keep in mind that the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by NATO and supported by many other countries, the invasion of Iraq was far from it. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the invasion of Iraq was illegal, that does not make you many friends. would people from Iraq be a threat if the US was to stick to Afghanistan, yes, but would you have as many insurgents, i doubt it. I personally fear for all troops in Afghanistan once your country pulls our of Iraq, i feel the morale boost to the insurgents will cause a "surge" in the amount of insurgents in Afghanistan, and then they only have to fight the one battle.
 
ChuckTheHammer said:
How could Iraq have threatened us there? And I am not being condescending, it's just a point I have not heard before. It's not likely Iraq and Iran would join to weaken us in Afghanistan, and it was not the Afghan mission that hurt us significantly in terms of foreign policy. Again, my emphasis is the role that foreign policy plays in the stability of our government. An over reliance on the military aspect of foreign policy is counter productive in terms of long range strategic goals, thus engagement in nations and the subsequent financial burdens are necessary, and a whole lot less expensive in both financial and and human costs. And I do not mean engage every idiot leader and those nations that are a direct threat; you engage those that have a vested interest in seeing them weakened. I am an old school admirer of Bismark. Set your adversary up, isolate them, them destroy them if necessary. But if it is necessary then they are isolated and at a disadvantage from the beginning.

Again, by fail I am not talking about overall failure but rather a dragging out of the mission, and the longer an engagement the more taxing it is and the greater the opportunity for secondary issues to develop.

I suppose my question is this: from the word go, do you believe the military was put in the best position we could have placed it or could we have utilized greater diplomacy to set the stage better? If the answer is we could have set the stage better, then foreign aid is a must. Diplomacy is not just getting people to agree with you, but sometimes just to keep them quiet for a bit.
Click to expand...

I have been to both places twice. There is nothing to win there. Alexander tried to conquer both during his reign. He succeed in Iraq (formerly Babylon) however could never win in the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan. Then Russia failed with the help of us. There is nothing to win in Afghanistan, it is the backwoods hardest place on earth were the only profit there is the poppy plant. Whats worse not is is they are now outlawing that to be grown. SO the one thing the country could produce, now it is illegal/ I'm not saying growing heroine is okay, but talk about taking the knees out of the country just while its trying to stand.

Now for Iraq, yes oil could be won there, however we will never see any of those profits, I have seen the refineries and drilling platforms, everything over there is torn to shit or destroyed from the war. If we could justify the whole war by saying we killed Sadam who killed millions of his own people then so be it, if we could pay for the war by drilling and refining the oil so be it. However we cannot drill over there, the US government is not in the oil business. You have to look at the Super Majors and Big Oil for that. Its not like the US is gonna go send over drill teams. Look for Royal Dutch Shell or Mobil or Chevron for that.
 
My quick little rant.
Why all this nonsense lets just take what we conquer and stop tip toeing. How long will we support every 3rd world shit hole. I've been in that sand and there is nothing there that matters wipe it out and be done with it. These people have hated us for over 1000 years and would do anything to see us dead. In fact they force feed the shit to their kids so they will continue the same thing. Thats been going on for century's. Its not going to change ever....liberation LOL yeah ok.. fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top