Trump and Carson say Afghan War was a mistake

[Mr. Morden]

So not just Iraq, but Afghanistan too:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/06/trump-on-afghanistan-we-made-a-terrible-mistake-getting-involved-there-in-the-first-place-video/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other, "not sure the grassroots would agree with this" news, Trump really likes eminent domain:

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/651519296611446784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

"I think eminent domain is wonderful - it's called economic development."

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

So not just Iraq, but Afghanistan too:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/06/trump-on-afghanistan-we-made-a-terrible-mistake-getting-involved-there-in-the-first-place-video/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other, "not sure the grassroots would agree with this" news, Trump really likes eminent domain:

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/651519296611446784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

"I think eminent domain is wonderful - it's called economic development."

Vile pig. He's supposed to be the man of the people?

[OSR stands with Israel]

We should have invaded Afghanistan like we did in 2001 but got out as soon as the tailban government got removed .

[dudeabides]

I think this shows yet again Mr. Trump's lack of knowledge of the world we live in. Even Iraq War critics acknowledge we had no choice but to enter Afghanistan. I think Donald Trump was just pissed because he couldn't have casino gambling in Florida under Jeb Bush and decided to take it out on W and just opposes everything W did.

[bobloblaw]

I agree. Trump might be my second choice

So on Sep 12, 2001 the United States should have just shrugged its shoulders and said "Oh well"

[Likely Voter]

Opposing the War in Afghanistan would put him to the left of Bernie Sanders. I'm sure he will clarify that he is opposed to the conduct of the war or the tactics, but there is no way he would argue against the original goal of removing the Taliban and safe haven for Al Queda.

[Bull Moose Base]

In a Hillary vs Rubio election, Trump would have non-narcissistic justifications for running independent. He could credibly argue that on trade, immigration, foreign policy and corporate influence, they're closer to each other than to him.

[Clark Kent]

Pro-Taliban and pro-government theft of your property? Trump is even worse than I thought.

[Leinad]

Pro-Taliban

I'm willing to bet you're not a fan of Putin. Then...should we invade Russia?

If you say "no," then aren't you pro-Putin? No, of course not. You're just against war in that case.

The same logic used by so-called hawks (it's the government's job to kill bad guys) is also used by economic leftists (it's the government's job to provide the basic needs for all people) and theocrats (it's the government's job to enforce a code of morality on people), just re-arranged. The logic is that if something is bad, it's automatically the government's job to solve the problem--regardless of the life, liberty, or property it might cost. Statism comes in different forms, but it's the same basic principle.

So on Sep 12, 2001 the United States should have just shrugged its shoulders and said "Oh well"

The fallacy there is that it's the government's proper response to send people out to go to war whenever something terrible like 9-11 occurs.

No one (not just bobloblaw, but most people more "hawkish" than me) seems to get the cost of war. Lots of life on both sides, and even the people who survive are often mentally scarred--the suicide rate for veterans is tragically high (I forgot the exact number--it might be 22 a day, but don't hold me to it). And even if they survive and are mentally okay when they return, it's still time they could've used to do better things than destroy and kill (regardless the cause, even if it's justified, it's a terrible thing to have to do). And for anyone out there who doesn't care about, you know, life, it's insanely expensive.

Not saying that war is always bad (although I would say it almost always is), I'm just saying that you need to consider the ramifications of this. The number of Americans who died in Iraq and Afghanistan was a bit less than 7,000 (not counting deaths of our allies, innocent people over there, veteran suicides, or people with permanent physical or mental injuries, by the way), the number of those who died in 9/11 was about less than 3,000. Still a lot, and obviously horrible, but when your reaction to a tragedy is worse than the tragedy itself, you're doing something wrong.

Just food for thought, everyone.

[Intell]

It really wasn't.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Pro-Taliban

I'm willing to bet you're not a fan of Putin. Then...should we invade Russia?

If you say "no," then aren't you pro-Putin? No, of course not. You're just against war in that case.

The same logic used by so-called hawks (it's the government's job to kill bad guys) is also used by economic leftists (it's the government's job to provide the basic needs for all people) and theocrats (it's the government's job to enforce a code of morality on people), just re-arranged. The logic is that if something is bad, it's automatically the government's job to solve the problem--regardless of the life, liberty, or property it might cost. Statism comes in different forms, but it's the same basic principle.

So on Sep 12, 2001 the United States should have just shrugged its shoulders and said "Oh well"

The fallacy there is that it's the government's proper response to send people out to go to war whenever something terrible like 9-11 occurs.

No one (not just bobloblaw, but most people more "hawkish" than me) seems to get the cost of war. Lots of life on both sides, and even the people who survive are often mentally scarred--the suicide rate for veterans is tragically high (I forgot the exact number--it might be 22 a day, but don't hold me to it). And even if they survive and are mentally okay when they return, it's still time they could've used to do better things than destroy and kill (regardless the cause, even if it's justified, it's a terrible thing to have to do). And for anyone out there who doesn't care about, you know, life, it's insanely expensive.

Not saying that war is always bad (although I would say it almost always is), I'm just saying that you need to consider the ramifications of this. The number of Americans who died in Iraq and Afghanistan was a bit less than 7,000 (not counting deaths of our allies, innocent people over there, veteran suicides, or people with permanent physical or mental injuries, by the way), the number of those who died in 9/11 was about less than 3,000. Still a lot, and obviously horrible, but when your reaction to a tragedy is worse than the tragedy itself, you're doing something wrong.

Just food for thought, everyone.

31,000 Coalition  and allied Afghan casualties  and 26,270 civilians killed

[Mr. Morden]

Edited the subject line to add Carson.  Carson says both the Afghan and Iraq wars were unnecessary:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carson also talked about Iraq:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dudeabides]

I agree. Trump might be my second choice

I get you are with him on foreign policy, but you'd support a socialist?

[Mr. Morden]

This is the logical extension of the split between “neocons” and those on the right whose view of the Muslim world is so dim that they see no hope for improvement:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199051.0

Bush/McCain style foreign policy is militaristic, sure, but it’s couched in optimistic terms about improving the Muslim world.  They think you can use the US military to force political solutions among various factions in the Muslim world, and impose democracy, or at least impose some kind of minimally liberal society.

But on the other side, and arguably “farther to the right” of them, you’ve got folks like Frank Gaffney, who are sufficiently Islamophobic that they see no prospects for improvement in the Muslim world.  From their perspective, any kind of strongman who is willing to play ball at all is probably better than the uncertainty that you’d get from Arab Spring-like revolutions.  The populations of those countries can’t actually be trusted to govern themselves, so better the strongman.

Which means that that camp is more “dovish” than the neocon wing, at least in certain situations.  And I think that’s where a large fraction of GOP primary voters are, and that’s what Trump and Carson are tapping into.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just amazing that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is way way way more of a hawk than the top 2 candidates for the Republicans.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is the logical extension of the split between “neocons” and those on the right whose view of the Muslim world is so dim that they see no hope for improvement:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199051.0

Bush/McCain style foreign policy is militaristic, sure, but it’s couched in optimistic terms about improving the Muslim world.  They think you can use the US military to force political solutions among various factions in the Muslim world, and impose democracy, or at least impose some kind of minimally liberal society.

But on the other side, and arguably “farther to the right” of them, you’ve got folks like Frank Gaffney, who are sufficiently Islamophobic that they see no prospects for improvement in the Muslim world.  From their perspective, any kind of strongman who is willing to play ball at all is probably better than the uncertainty that you’d get from Arab Spring-like revolutions.  The populations of those countries can’t actually be trusted to govern themselves, so better the strongman.

Which means that that camp is more “dovish” than the neocon wing, at least in certain situations.  And I think that’s where a large fraction of GOP primary voters are, and that’s what Trump and Carson are tapping into.

The same dichotomy exists in the European right as well - UKIP and FN tend to look down on Middle Eatern Wars.

I think there was recent polling suggesting most Americans think the country should have never got to war in Afghanistan, so Trump et Carson are not expousing a fringe position.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The invasion was right but we should have left immediately after the Taliban had been removed from power in 2001 and then just put No Fly Zones all around the Afghan- Pakistan Border

[Lyin' Steve]

This whole situation is hilarious.

Not only did Trump tear down Jeb's campaign, not only did he tear him down personally, but now Trump is using his power with the GOP base to turn Republicans against Bush's signature legacies, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars!

If you thought 2008 was the demolition of George W. Bush, think again; for all the Democratic party's efforts they couldn't even dream of being as effective as Trump in 2015.

[Blue3]

Just amazing that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is way way way more of a hawk than the top 2 candidates for the Republicans.

Sanders too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Just amazing that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is way way way more of a hawk than the top 2 candidates for the Republicans.

Sanders too.

Trump and Carson are certainly not doves, and are not way way way more dovish than Sanders. II believe Trump and Carson have made more hawkish statements about Syria than Sanders has.

[Mr. Morden]

As Crabcake notes, you could also say that it's "amazing" that Francois Hollande is more hawkish than Marine Le Pen.  "Hawkishness" doesn't monotonically increase as you move from left to right.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As Crabcake notes, you could also say that it's "amazing" that Francois Hollande is more hawkish than Marine Le Pen.  "Hawkishness" doesn't monotonically increase as you move from left to right.

It usually does with 21st century American politics.

[Mr. Morden]

As Crabcake notes, you could also say that it's "amazing" that Francois Hollande is more hawkish than Marine Le Pen.  "Hawkishness" doesn't monotonically increase as you move from left to right.

It usually does with 21st century American politics.

The word "usually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

[Mehmentum]

On a side note, this makes Rand Paul's campaign even more useless than it was.  Since foreign policy was basically the only area Paul deviated from GOP orthodoxy, Trump and Carson have stolen what little he had left to differentiate him from the rest of the field.

[Torie]

These guys didn't want to shut down the al qaeda bases?