Heck Shootall, I understand the good fighting the bad thing, but even if you think we have to go to another country to do that, we are broke, trillions in debt, and the bad is right here inside our borders, might as well spend a couple decades fighting the bad right here, after we clean this place up and pay off the debt, we could then debate sending our young people to another country. In which case I'd still say no, but at least we would be in a better position to debate it. I haven't seen a good reason to send soldiers to another country myself, not in a long, long time. We got things that can take out threats without going there. There is something fishy about sending troops and equipment to other countries, I think it smells like money flow and politics to me. It can't be much else. 9.5 years in Afghanistan? C'mon. The people who decide such things ain't thinkin good vs bad like you are...they got something else going. (money flow/politics) If they cared about good vs bad they would attack the borders here and protect us in a big hurry, and probably take back a city or two from the thugs that run the streets. They are trying to tell us they can change the middle east, but can't take back a city from a bunch of young thugs. Who they trying to kid? If they can't handle whats going on here they won't ever be able to win a war "there" either, they don't have the stomach to take on the bad.
Older I get the more I see through the smoke our people in charge put out there. I can't help someone over there getting stoned, no more than I can keep every elderly person from getting their teeth knocked out from a thug around here...but I got a better chance of helping here than there. The word is a rough place all over, the people who have the power to send a young soldier to die needs to think it out more. First thing is, does our constitution and founding fathers agree on this kind of thing? I think not. They knew they could not fix the world either, so they tried making their own, and we messed it up good.
