When you look at the debates from either perspective, it is clear that both candidates- for some reason- have chosen the Middle East over America. There is a ton of money that is going into the war. I know it's not as much as Social Security, but the prospect of abandoning the war and using that money that we are spending every year to improve our own country would not cause as great a shock to our social system as getting rid of Social Security and other forms of entitlement. What is sad is that the only thing the two candidates could agree on is something no American really wants, which is to continue the war in the Middle East. Because they disagree on everything else, all those issues will be pushed at a snails pace because of the confronting parties in congress constantly undermining each other. And while little to no change happens on that front, the war fought- as far as I can see- for no interest that concerns average American citizens- continues to drain us dry because its the tax payers who are paying for it. I feel there was an important voice left out of the debates. Us. Instead of setting the issues, we receive them as they appear on the news and argue. Sometimes I wish the campaign ads said Obama vs Romney vs the American People. I really feel like we are on three different sides.
While I agree with the overall sentiment, I think part of your reasoning that you mentioned is fundamentally wrong. What the Right doesn't want to admit is that we did fund these wars on a credit card at the behest of the Republican party... and what the Left doesn't want to admit is we can't save money that we never had to begin with and put it into infrastructure. It wouldn't get saved, it would just get rerouted.
Didn't consider that. I always thought Israel was solidly backed by most people in government, democratic or republican. While the money most certainly may go to anything else but the people, it would be a start. But as I have had time to think on this, the American economy is slipping and their attempt to seize the oil actually may be a credible, if deplorable, attempt at reinvigorating it. We cannot give up the area because the area is probably one of the only hopes of American economy and American status recovering. Whatever they say, America is swaying at the top right now. Our military power is nothing if we lose the economy and so we grab it by the throat...oil.
Yeah, you realize we cut off two of the biggest oil producers in the middle east? We blew up Iraq and we won't trade with Iran. the US actually sits on one of the world's largest known deposits, and we don't exploit it in the same way as some countries, like the in the ME, do. The reason for this is, a lot of it can't be extracted without significant risk. And anybody who wants to risk destroying long term renewable resources like agriculture land to exploit high profit expendable resources, isn't thinking further than their face. Technology will catch up to allow it to be done safely, always has.
I think what they are attempting now is sort of like a vice grip. They will control the region by controlling key points, and they are not worries so much about present day physical/political damage as securing future promise of oil production and control of the same. Plus, it has always been a plan to dig up the Caspian for oil and then move it through a pipe moving down through Afghanistan towards the Red Sea. However, I am also under the suspicion that, popular with markets, the "oil crisis" might not actually be a crisis. It may simply be baseless sensation that serves a two-fold purpose of justifying both the war and higher gas prices. Even though Iran may have raised its prices to combat economic sanctions, the US does not get all its oil from Iran.
Iraq has the largest amount of unproved oil reserves in the world. American military were there for years. And what oil did we get ? Not one drop as far as I know. Grab oil ? Seize oil ? It would have already happened.
Getting rid of Social Security ? Ar e you dreaming ? Where do you get the idea that that could happen ? And Abandoning the war (in Afghanistan) would cause too great a shock ? What do you think is the reason for US troops (and British et al ) to be in Afghanistan ?
An army cannot go into a country and carry out all the oil on its back. I think you have what I said, literally, backwards.
I think Obama should bring the troops home now instead of waiting another two years. There's nothing to wait for now that he's been reelected.
