I agree with Melanerpes that even short-term interests for politicians point to some reason in fiscal prudence at the very least in the first year.
Telerion does point to the wisdom of moderation.
Still, the larger question, as Melanerpes alluded to, is how do you put a restraint on a politician hell-bent on re-election?
Originally posted by eljefejesusBy informing the populace and keeping the political system open to new parties.
I agree with Melanerpes that even short-term interests for politicians point to some reason in fiscal prudence at the very least in the first year.
Telerion does point to the wisdom of moderation.
Still, the larger question, as Melanerpes alluded to, is how do you put a restraint on a politician hell-bent on re-election?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet's give some credit where credit is due,
Well, even Clinton did that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png
the internet and its inventors and investors did that.
The Republicans in Congress pushed to limit the growth of Spending.
The end of the Cold War ended justification for increased millitary spending and even some bases were shut by Clinton.
Why does it take so many major events to coincide for a decade of relatively low deficit reduction?
I agree, that was quite a remarkable decade.
It involved the two traditional parties in the US though.
Originally posted by eljefejesusWell, the Cold War is still over, isn't it? Shutting down the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and cutting the defense budget would fix a large part of the current deficit.
Let's give some credit where credit is due,
the internet and its inventors and investors did that.
The Republicans in Congress pushed to limit the growth of Spending.
The end of the Cold War ended justification for increased millitary spending and even some bases were shut by Clinton.
Why does it take so many major events to coincide for a de ...[text shortened]... that was quite a remarkable decade.
It involved the two traditional parties in the US though.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat would you then do about a resurgent Taliban in Afghannistan with a history of protecting extremist terrorists wherever it holds power that will attack US soil?
Well, the Cold War is still over, isn't it? Shutting down the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and cutting the defense budget would fix a large part of the current deficit.
I say move more troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Originally posted by eljefejesusWell, nothing. It's much cheaper to simply invest in domestic intelligence. Besides, the Taliban cannot be defeated without support from the general populace, so the NATO mission is already a waste of time, lives and effort.
What would you then do about a resurgent Taliban in Afghannistan with a history of protecting extremist terrorists wherever it holds power that will attack US soil?
I say move more troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWould any world power in history ever be expected to just leave because physical confrontation is not the most efficient use of resources versus intelligence. I am sure there is a significant use of intelligence against the Taliban already. I am sure they seek local support form the population and tribal warlords. But a waste to fight the aggressors? I don't think that's realistic. Somebody has to defense from the acts of aggression, like world war 2... although admittedly there were many little countries just hoping to stay neutral then too.
Well, nothing. It's much cheaper to simply invest in domestic intelligence. Besides, the Taliban cannot be defeated without support from the general populace, so the NATO mission is already a waste of time, lives and effort.
Main point: retreating from confrontation against an initial aggressor is not realistc for a world super-power.
Originally posted by eljefejesusWas retreating from Vietnam a wise choice or would it have been better if the US was still there fighting the Vietcong?
Would any world power in history ever be expected to just leave because physical confrontation is not the most efficient use of resources versus intelligence. I am sure there is a significant use of intelligence against the Taliban already. I am sure they seek local support form the population and tribal warlords. But a waste to fight the aggressors? ...[text shortened]... ating from confrontation against an initial aggressor is not realistc for a world super-power.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAgain, aggressor being the operative word.
Was retreating from Vietnam a wise choice or would it have been better if the US was still there fighting the Vietcong?
Vietnam was not a base from which terrorists launched attacks on the home soil of the US.
There is much more "personal" a dispute with the Taliban forces who have already been forced from effective political country over much of Afghanistan and there is still great motivation to keep them out of power.
Vietnam was a high cost, low benefit war much like Iraq. It did not serve as a base to commit attacks against the US.
Why stop fighting the Taliban if it is seeking to regain Afghanistan and is vulnerable to the US. The US has NATO allies for a reason, and that is that most nations understand the move to keep the aggressor out of power.
Originally posted by eljefejesusThe Taliban never attacked the US.
Again, aggressor being the operative word.
Vietnam was not a base from which terrorists launched attacks on the home soil of the US.
There is much more "personal" a dispute with the Taliban forces who have already been forced from effective political country over much of Afghanistan and there is still great motivation to keep them out of power.
...[text shortened]... reason, and that is that most nations understand the move to keep the aggressor out of power.
And yet if it hosts and defends Al-Qaeda as its guests throughout the 9/11 attacks, that technicality didn't really matter as it ought not. In fact, the Taliban did not even want to give up its "guests" to the US. They are the willful launching pad and cohorts to an attack on American soil without repentance ahead of the retaliatory attack. They were specifically asked to change their policies. Now why would the US back off of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? They are on the run and well the aggressors and co-horts should be, regardless of just how directly their dirty hands were involved.