Freshman Republicans want even longer Afghan war

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/17/freshman_republicans_afghanistan

Monday, Jan 17, 2011 13:50 ET

Last week anti-tax leader Grover Norquist pleaded with conservatives to have, at least, a conversation about Afghanistan and the goals and costs of the 10-year war. (One estimate puts the price tag at $120 billion per year.)

But it appears the Republican Party is simply not there with Norquist.

The latest evidence comes as four freshman Republican senators, including among the most "fiscally conservative" members of the Senate, have concluded a trip to the region. They are now promptly calling for the expensive war to be extended indefinitely.

This is despite the fact that the Obama Administration's oft-repeated target dates for beginning of withdrawal (July 2011) and full transition to Afghan control (2014) are not hard deadlines at all.

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard has been gathering reaction from the senators, Marco Rubio of Florida, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Ron Jonson of Wisconsin, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. All four came back with basically the same message: progress is being made in the war and there should not be even a timeline for withdrawal.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Let's see them sign up for several tours of duty, then...

Let them put their money where their mouths are.

I'm sure their constituents won't mind...

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. You stole the words right out of my mouth...

:hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Great minds and all that, my dear Ghost!

:hi: back atcha!

[Swamp Rat]

3. Send the Freshman Republicans to Iraq and Afghanistan with plenty of MREs and ammo.

That'll change their chickenhawk minds about making war.

[Angry Dragon]

5. It is my understanding

that Congress is the branch of government that has the power to declare war.
Has Congress ever declared was on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan??

[RKP5637]

7. Not to my knowledge! Maybe if we got the F out of other countries, we just

might find fewer PO'ed people over there. BUT, then the MIC would be losing out on the cash generated. War always means big profits for someone.

[RKP5637]

6. Good, send 'them' over, send their kids over, let them fight their F'en wars! n/t

[NuclearDem]

8. AfuckingMEN!

Send their kids over there, and when they come back, throw em to the side of the road! (Because, if we learned anything from Ron Johnson, homeless veterans are just minor details).

[madmax]

9. Then they need to send their sons, sisters, daughters, brothers,

cousins, nieces nephews, Dads, and grandmas firt. :mad:

[silverweb]

10. "War is good business."

For the plutocrats. That was their refrain during the Vietnam "police action" and they will do all they can to keep us involved in Afghanistan.

They've gotten rich from the profits on manufacture of weapons, machinery, and supplies for war. Those who are sent to war against other human beings mean nothing to them, and I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that they also make money betting on those lives.

As Sartre said, "When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die."

I will add that the rich seek to wage war to become richer, and it's the poor on all sides who alway pay with their lives.

[RKP5637]

12. I wonder if any of them take out "Dead Peasants' Insurance" on any of our

soldiers like the crooked corrupt corporations do on employees.

[silverweb]

14. I would expect it.

That's partly what I was referring to in my comment -- dead peasants insurance and outright wagering on the body count, even on individual lives.

They think they own everyone and act accordingly.

[Blue Owl]

11. how about some legitimate REASONS why we should?

:wtf:

[NNN0LHI]

13. Free the Afghan women from the Burqa?

That one used to be real popular on this site.

Don

[Blue Owl]

16. Sadly many other cultures abuse women as badly

War/violence cannot be the way to solve it.

[Urban Prairie]

15. Rethugs have about the same opinion of our troops as they have for the unborn fetuses

of poor, uninsured, unwed mothers.

They are only worthwhile and valuable to the nation, until they are born, or the troops are discharged from the service for whatever reason(s).

Then they are completely on their own, becoming personally responsible for their and the mothers' infants' lives and health.

Rethugs also realize the positive aspects, benefits, and implications of extending the "war" and occupation in Afghanistan.

It puts budgetary pressure on DC to cut, and hopefully best of all, may ultimately help to eliminate government spending on most if not all social services for the disabled, infirm, aged, and poor, and that is a good thing, as it would help to destroy evil "socialist" government programs, and might help to put even more teabagger/rightwinger-supported Rethugs in office.

It also permits the corporate-contractor war machine to continue to rake in huge profits for themselves, their stockholders, plus perhaps result in much larger payoffs on the side from their lobbyists to those Rethugs' campaign war chests, who vote for bills that benefit them directly or indirectly.

Many of those who receive government assistance vote Democratic as well, except of course, those aging, stupid, and bigoted teabaggers who must foolishly believe that their SS and Medicare benefits will "somehow" be continued seperately from minorities, whom they must think would be cut off/out. A homeless person who lacks federal/state government support, and has no permanent address is not very likely to vote as well.

[lonestarnot]

20. They want to steal more houses. Keep 'em over there, what are they gona do about it?

Can't fight a war over here, when you're fighting over there.

[krabigirl]

17. Wow.

[Hugabear]

18. Do any of these rethugs have children serving in Afghanistan?

I'm guessing not many, if any, of them do

[lonestarnot]

19. So not for cutting back richies for 24 months or $11 bil a month. They're real cutters aren't they.