Afghanistan Plan Tonight: What do you want Trump to say?

[Mr. Deez]

Everything is related.

No, it's not, but it's easier to peddle conspiracy theories and reinforce paranoia if you assume that it is.

3. Multinational corporations are able to set up shop in countries that don't nationalize industry, thus enabling them to take advantage of lower production costs and also avoid higher US taxes. Again, when a country plays by other rules such as Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela, there is no benefit to the multi-national corporation and the MIC is used to encourage the country to play ball. This involves propaganda, color revolutions, sanctions, etc.

One observation is that the economy isn't so much supporting the military as the military is supporting the economy.

You mentioned that the defense isn't an extraordinary high percentage of the budget. The budget was $3.9 trillion. A better metric is what percentage of the revenue is defense spending.

In 2016 revenue coming in was $3.3 trillion (Link). Military spending was shown at $620 billion (link). That's approximately one out every five dollars of revenue.

The ratio is one of every six dollars when compared to budget ($3.9 trillion) rather than revenue, because the budget includes money we don't have (borrowed money).

The point that you're now trying to divert attention from is that you think our military spending is "blowing up" the national debt and "draining our resources," and that's just way overblown. Sure, we can look at defense as a percentage of revenue if that's what you want to look at. However, you may want to at least start accurately citing your own source. Furthermore, you should look at a consistent source rather than scouring the internet for random pie charts.

In 2016, we spent $593B on national defense and took in $3.268T. That's 18.1 percent of revenue. In 1996, it was 19.7 percent. In 1986 when we were kicking your ***, it was 35.5 percent. In 1976, it was 30 percent. In 1966, it was 44.4 percent. In 1956, it was 57 percent. In 1946, it was 109 percent, and that was down from an astounding 278 percent in 1943, which happened for obvious reasons.

So is the military getting harder for us to afford or easier? It's getting easier whether we're talking about GDP, spending, or revenue, and it's not what's really straining our budget or "blowing up our national debt." Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of that military spending isn't spent overseas as you seem to think, and only about $10B per year is actually unique to overseas stationing. Link. It's spent in the United States.

Besides, if you think the military is supporting the economy rather than the other way around, then why the hell would the US cut its military? If what you're saying is true, that's about the dumbest thing we could do. But of course, if the real agenda isn't concerned with the US economy but with promoting and enabling Russian interests, then it makes all the sense in the world.

 

[Musburger1]

No, it's not, but it's easier to peddle conspiracy theories and reinforce paranoia if you assume that it is.



The point that you're now trying to divert attention from is that you think our military spending is "blowing up" the national debt and "draining our resources," and that's just way overblown. Sure, we can look at defense as a percentage of revenue if that's what you want to look at. However, you may want to at least start accurately citing your own source. Furthermore, you should look at a consistent source rather than scouring the internet for random pie charts.

In 2016, we spent $593B on national defense and took in $3.268T. That's 18.1 percent of revenue. In 1996, it was 19.7 percent. In 1986 when we were kicking your ***, it was 35.5 percent. In 1976, it was 30 percent. In 1966, it was 44.4 percent. In 1956, it was 57 percent. In 1946, it was 109 percent, and that was down from an astounding 278 percent in 1943, which happened for obvious reasons.

So is the military getting harder for us to afford or easier? It's getting easier whether we're talking about GDP, spending, or revenue, and it's not what's really straining our budget or "blowing up our national debt." Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of that military spending isn't spent overseas as you seem to think, and only about $10B per year is actually unique to overseas stationing. Link. It's spent in the United States.

Besides, if you think the military is supporting the economy rather than the other way around, then why the hell would the US cut its military? If what you're saying is true, that's about the dumbest thing we could do. But of course, if the real agenda isn't concerned with the US economy but with promoting and enabling Russian interests, then it makes all the sense in the world.

The figures you gave are more than a little questionable.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/214492-2/214492/ This one cites over $156 billion annually on overseas bases.
https://www.cato.org/blog/costs-our-overseas-military-presence?+Cato-at-liberty+(Cato+at+Liberty) Cato also cites figures several magnitudes higher than the report you referenced.

Moving along, your concluding paragraph missed the point. I was trying to make you understand that the US ecenomy has transformed from an economy based on production and savings into an economy based on globalization and debt- based financialization. It is become a system which funnels income from the many to the few and is dependent on an imperial force to keep the system alive. This is both immoral and unsustainable.

 

[iatrogenic]

It is become a system which funnels income from the many to the few and is dependent on an imperial force to keep the system alive. This is both immoral and unsustainable.

Military force is necessary to maintain security of the country. That is both moral and is a requirement of sustainability. Our capitalist system funnels money to wherever the purchasers decide they want to spend their money. The problem of liberal government taxing too much and funneling funds to their pet programs does exist, but the way to correct that error is to reduce the size of government and allow the free market process to work.

 

[Musburger1]

Military force is necessary to maintain security of the country. That is both moral and is a requirement of sustainability. Our capitalist system funnels money to wherever the purchasers decide they want to spend their money. The problem of liberal government taxing too much and funneling funds to their pet programs does exist, but the way to correct that error is to reduce the size of government and allow the free market process to work.

What you said with respect to the military is true in theory, but that no longer describes the reality of how the military is used. The public is sold a bill of goods that all of these military bases are essential to defend the country from terrorism and thus provide security. The bigger reason is not to provide security to our shores, but rather to enforce globalism by projecting power. That's very different.

The consumer capitalism (spending money where and how we choose) you mentioned is increasingly based on credit rather than savings/wages. This is the result of globalization and financialization. This model has brought people out of poverty in many parts of the world but is having devastating effects to the US population and threatens the long and even short term viability of the US as a functioning country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The figures you gave are more than a little questionable.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/214492-2/214492/ This one cites over $156 billion annually on overseas bases.
https://www.cato.org/blog/costs-our-overseas-military-presence?+Cato-at-liberty+(Cato+at+Liberty) Cato also cites figures several magnitudes higher than the report you referenced.

Ok, go with the special interest groups' numbers, which assume that if we closed the overseas installations (which have already been massively scaled back in the last 30 years) the troops and personnel wouldn't be stationed anywhere else. That's almost surely not true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of discussion. In other words, I'll give the agenda-driven dumbasses every benefit of the doubt and use the obviously phony $156B figure. We're talking about approximately 1/4 of 18.1 percent of revenue. That's not blowing up our national debt.

Moving along, your concluding paragraph missed the point. I was trying to make you understand that the US ecenomy has transformed from an economy based on production and savings into an economy based on globalization and debt- based financialization.

I understand your point on the economy (which has some truth to it), but you've shifted the point around.

 

[Musburger1]

Ok, go with the special interest groups' numbers, which assume that if we closed the overseas installations (which have already been massively scaled back in the last 30 years) the troops and personnel wouldn't be stationed anywhere else. That's almost surely not true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of discussion. In other words, I'll give the agenda-driven dumbasses every benefit of the doubt and use the obviously phony $156B figure. We're talking about approximately 1/4 of 18.1 percent of revenue. That's not blowing up our national debt.



I understand your point on the economy (which has some truth to it), but you've shifted the point around.

If removing a portion of the additional troops and bases - not transferring them but eliminating them - reduced defense costs say $50 billion, that's just the initial benefit. Assuming some of those people became productive workers in the private sector instead of being supported by the state, they would now be helping grow the economy and contribute to the tax base, at least theoretically.

You said that the economy several decades ago was able to spend a much higher percentage of revenue on defense than it does now. What does that tell us? What if the percentage of defense spending suddenly doubled and approached the figure you cited in the 70's? That was affordable back then but isn't affordable now. Doesn't that show that the system is less efficient now, has more demands (health care, social security, debt service) and thus is going backward?

If the solution is to eliminate or reduce Medicare spending, social security benefits, and infrastructure spending, just how long do you think the empire can be sustained before it's own citizens begin to reject it? Think Greece.

 

[Musburger1]

Now I want to use a Pepe Escobar article out today to tie together my arguments of how and why the US is deploying its military. The article takes about 5-10 minutes to read, but I'm going to paste the last half of it below.
http://thesaker.is/korea-afghanistan-and-the-never-ending-war-trap/

Once again, it’s all about BRI

Now let’s move to Afghanistan. “Mad Dog” Mattis once famously said it was fun to shoot Taliban fighters. “Known unknowns” Don Rumsfeld was more realistic; he moved out of Afghanistan (toward Iraq) because there were not enough good targets to bomb.

Anyone who spent time working/reporting on the Afghan Hindu Kush and the southwestern deserts knows why the proverbial “there’s no military solution” applies. There are myriad reasons, starting with the profound, radicalized Afghan ethnic divide (roughly, 40% are mostly rural, tribal Pashtun, many recruited by the Taliban; almost 30% are Tajik, a great deal of them urban, literate and in government; more than20% are Hazara Shiites; and 10% are Uzbek).

The bulk of Washington’s “aid” to Kabul throughout these past 16 years has been on the bombing, not the economy, front. Government corruption is cataclysmic. Warlords rule. The Taliban thrive because they offer local protection. Much to Pashtun ire, most of the army is Tajik. Tajik politicians are mostly close to India while most Pashtun favor Pakistan (after all, they have cousins on the other side of the Durand line; enter the dream of a future, reunited Pashtunistan).

On the GWOT (Global War on Terror) front, al-Qaeda would not even exist if the late Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski had not come up with the idea of a sprawling, well-weaponized private army of demented jihadis-cum-tribal Afghans fighting the communist government in Kabul during the 1980s. Add to this the myth that the Pentagon needs to be on the ground in Afghanistan to prevent jihadis from attacking America. Al-Qaeda is extinct in Afghanistan. And Daesh does not need territory to concoct/project its DIY jihad.

When the myth of the US in Afghanistan as a categorical imperative is exposed, that may unveil what this is all about: business.

And we’re not even talking about who really profits from large-scale opium/heroin trade.

Two months ago the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib, was breathlessly spinning how “President Trump is keenly interested in Afghanistan’s economic potential”, as in “our estimated $1 trillion in copper, iron ore, rare-earth elements, aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium”. This led to the proverbial unnamed “US officials” telling Reuters last month that what Trump wants is for the US to demand some of that mineral wealth in exchange for “assisting” Kabul.

A US Geological Survey study a decade ago did identify potential Afghan mineral wealth –gold, silver, platinum, iron ore, uranium, zinc, tantalum, bauxite, coal, natural gas and copper – worth as much as US$1 trillion, with much spin dedicated to Afghanistan as “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”.

And the competition – once again, China – is already there, facing myriad infrastructure and red-tape problems, but concentrated onincorporating Afghanistan, long-term, into the New Silk Roads, aka Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), along with its security cooperation arm, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

It’s no secret the Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution hatched by Afghans and supervised by the SCO (of which Afghanistan is an observer and future full member). So from the point of view of neocon/neoliberalcon elements of the War Party in Washington, Afghanistan only makes sense as a forward base to harass/stall/thwart BRI.

What Russia and China want for Afghanistan – yet another node in the process of Eurasia integration – is not much different from what Russia, China and South Korea want for North Korea: increased connectivity as in a future Trans-Korean Railwaylinked to the Trans-Siberian.

As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of “investing” in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?

 

[Mr. Deez]

If removing a portion of the additional troops and bases - not transferring them but eliminating them - reduced defense costs say $50 billion, that's just the initial benefit. Assuming some of those people became productive workers in the private sector instead of being supported by the state, they would now be helping grow the economy and contribute to the tax base, at least theoretically.

What they'd do is go to the US and compete with current workers in the United States, and they'd be eligible for VA benefits. Is that good for the economy? If it is, then it sounds like you're making the same economic argument that the open borders people make. I don't buy it. And bear in mind that the troops that get stationed in Europe or Asia don't stay there forever. They do a basic tour of duty and then go somewhere else - usually to the United States. The number of people who stay long term at overseas locations is pretty small - not enough to make a significant economic impact either way.

You said that the economy several decades ago was able to spend a much higher percentage of revenue on defense than it does now. What does that tell us? What if the percentage of defense spending suddenly doubled and approached the figure you cited in the 70's? That was affordable back then but isn't affordable now. Doesn't that show that the system is less efficient now, has more demands (health care, social security, debt service) and thus is going backward?

LOL. That's not what I said at all. I didn't say the economy was able to support a bigger military commitment back then. I said we chose to do that back then, and that was because we considered the Soviet Union to be an existential threat that needed to be contained. We COULD do that now if we had to, but why should we? There is no national security threat at level. The defense increases I favor are pretty modest.

In addition, don't think I'm blind to military waste. Despite what you might assume, I know it's there. I've seen plenty of waste with my own eyes. It's small stuff, but compounded throughout the military, it would add up. And of course, the way the military procures equipment is extremely political, especially for big ticket items, and that political influence creates enormous waste. See the F-35. It's a waste by itself, and if we end up dumping the A-10 and replacing it with more F-35s it'll be an even bigger waste - and for a crappier plane. The KC-X contract was a total hustle. And of course, one of the biggest was the A-12 shitpile, and I know one of the lawyers who worked on the litigation. That turned to crap 25 years ago, and the litigation didn't get resolved until 2014 - cost the taxpayers billions, and they didn't even get a friggin' plane. (Hell, even Dick Cheney thought the taxpayer was getting hosed in that deal.)

If the solution is to eliminate or reduce Medicare spending, social security benefits, and infrastructure spending, just how long do you think the empire can be sustained before it's own citizens begin to reject it? Think Greece.

This is why I don't think you really know the budget very well. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are massive. Combined, they dwarf the military, but the biggest problem is that they are growing ridiculously fast (especially Medicare and Medicaid - for obvious reasons). There's nothing we could realistically do with the military to even make a meaningful dent in those programs' solvency and cost problems. Even if we eliminated national defense altogether (which even Putin wouldn't favor, because he would lose his boogeyman), it would only delay the inevitable. For the long term, there's no getting around entitlement reform.

 

[Monahorns]

Yep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Those of the items of the budget that have to be reduced to balance the budget.

 

[Musburger1]

If the solution is to eliminate or reduce Medicare spending, social security benefits, and infrastructure spending, just how long do you think the empire can be sustained before it's own citizens begin to reject it? Think Greece.

This is why I don't think you really know the budget very well. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are massive. Combined, they dwarf the military, but the biggest problem is that they are growing ridiculously fast (especially Medicare and Medicaid - for obvious reasons). There's nothing we could realistically do with the military to even make a meaningful dent in those programs' solvency and cost problems. Even if we eliminated national defense altogether (which even Putin wouldn't favor, because he would lose his boogeyman), it would only delay the inevitable. For the long term, there's no getting around entitlement reform.
​

Let me clarify my comment because your interpretation of what I said isn't what I meant to convey. I'm fully aware that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security not only comprise a larger portion of the budget than defense, but they are also growing at a faster rate because of demographics in the case of Social Security, and a combination of demographics, fraud, and defacto cartels in the case of the Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare in general. As you and Monahans both pointed out, the entitlement spending isn't sustainable. But when you both say "reform" must come, I'm telling you reform is no longer possible without massive civil unrest and/or a massive depression.

Once the government finally begins decreasing expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars in order to get a handle on the national debt, it will translate into massive layoffs and less consumption throughout the entire economy. Health care now makes up a ridiculous percentage of the economy, and once the spigot begins to tighten that means less dollars will flow to not only doctors and nurses, but also millions of paper pushers who never should have been part of the medical system to begin with. But they are part of the system, and when their positions are eliminated or their income is reduced, the ripples will tear apart the economy.
.
.
.

LOL. That's not what I said at all. I didn't say the economy was able to support a bigger military commitment back then. I said we chose to do that back then, and that was because we considered the Soviet Union to be an existential threat that needed to be contained. We COULD do that now if we had to, but why should we? There is no national security threat at level. The defense increases I favor are pretty modest.​

There may not be an existential threat now, but if you listen to the wacky neocons both inside and outside of the military and their media stooges they certainly have been conveying the idea both terrorism and Russia are existential threats. But I agree with you that there aren't any existential threats to the US mainland. There is no country on Earth currently capable to project power across the Ocean and invade the United States. Not Russia and certainly not Islamic terrorists.

So why then do you propose increasing the budget any at all? The common belief is that Russia and or Islamic terrorists present threats to US allies. Those are flat out lies. Russia is an economic threat because they are a competitor in terms of resources and the possibility of collaborating with China and the Eurasian countries which are projected to be the engine of growth for the next several decades. But people aren't going to back military spending if we say the reason for it is to dominate the world economically. Nobody wants to have their son go to Afghanistan in order to make stock prices higher. But if they believe their son if going to Afghanistan to stop an (fictional) invasion and make America safe they'll buy it. Europe is in danger of Islamic terror as a result of their own immigration policies combined with America's wars which drives more Muslims into Europe to escape the calamity.

In addition, don't think I'm blind to military waste. Despite what you might assume, I know it's there. I've seen plenty of waste with my own eyes. It's small stuff, but compounded throughout the military, it would add up. And of course, the way the military procures equipment is extremely political, especially for big ticket items, and that political influence creates enormous waste. See the F-35. It's a waste by itself, and if we end up dumping the A-10 and replacing it with more F-35s it'll be an even bigger waste - and for a crappier plane. The KC-X contract was a total hustle. And of course, one of the biggest was the A-12 shitpile, and I know one of the lawyers who worked on the litigation. That turned to crap 25 years ago, and the litigation didn't get resolved until 2014 - cost the taxpayers billions, and they didn't even get a friggin' plane. (Hell, even Dick Cheney thought the taxpayer was getting hosed in that deal.)​

The waste is bad enough, but it goes beyond waste to out and out crime, theft, and looting. And nobody knows how much. The more we interject ourselves into foreign entanglements, the more tax dollars gets stolen. The estimate in both Iraq and Afghanistan is many, many billions. Just today, ZeroHedge reported this latest scandal. It's relatively small ($50 Million) but it gives you an idea of what goes on.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-cars-guns-booze-mentor-afghan-intel-officers

Read that and tell me you aren't pissed off.

​

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm fully aware that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security not only comprise a larger portion of the budget than defense,

Yes, this is true, but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security comprise more than just a "larger portion." They dwarf it multiple times over - about 3x - 3.5x.

As you and Monahans both pointed out, the entitlement spending isn't sustainable. But when you both say "reform" must come, I'm telling you reform is no longer possible without massive civil unrest and/or a massive depression.

That depends on how long we wait and what we do. If we wait until the last minute and then have to make immediate and sudden cuts, then it'll be ugly. If we made modest reforms before things get out of hand, then it doesn't have to be particularly ugly. The problem is that even moderate reforms are politically exploited and spun as huge cuts, when they aren't. We need to get over that.

There may not be an existential threat now, but if you listen to the wacky neocons both inside and outside of the military and their media stooges they certainly have been conveying the idea both terrorism and Russia are existential threats. But I agree with you that there aren't any existential threats to the US mainland. There is no country on Earth currently capable to project power across the Ocean and invade the United States. Not Russia and certainly not Islamic terrorists.

There's a balance between an existential threat and no threat at all. Terrorism isn't an existential threat, because it's not going ot destroy the United States. However, is it a security threat? Hell yes. Islamic terrorists storm all over the globe murdering people, including in the United States. That's not OK and is worth trying to stop. Even Putin believes that. That's why even though I don't trust Putin, I do think we should work with him on antiterrorism efforts.

Russia isn't an immediately existential threat, because they aren't crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. However, do I think they aspire to take actions that are adverse to US interests? Yes. Furthermore, an economic threat is still a threat.

So why then do you propose increasing the budget any at all?

Because I don't think the lack of an existential threat came as a result of everybody in the world being nice guys who don't want to threaten anybody. I think it came as a result of our economic and military power. People don't screw with us, because of what the economic and military consequences would be. It's not because they're nice folks.

Those are flat out lies.

LOL. Well, in your world, they are.

The waste is bad enough, but it goes beyond waste to out and out crime, theft, and looting. And nobody knows how much.

This is true, but the solution isn't as simple as getting rid of the military or cutting it back. You have to look at the costs and benefits of all the possible options.

Read that and tell me you aren't pissed off.

Yes, I read it, and it pisses me off.

 

[Brad Austin]

On a different note, but related to main topic...

So a few years back I dated a female born in Afghanistan. Amazing person and still a dear friend. She's no longer Muslim, but her sister who also lives in Texas is.

Funny thing is her sister is a die hard DT fan that detests Liberals. She was that way all through the primaries as well and very vocal on social media. I was taken back when I saw it for myself. An Afghani born Muslim is die hard MAGA.

The reason I'm even mentioning this is I got a voicemail yesterday from my friend (the non-political sister) who said how much she supports DT's new position in Afghanistan. Said I'd be happy to know she's becoming a DT convert.

Even more ironic...I also casually dated a female from Syria (Muslim) back in early 2000's. We've reconnected as friends recently now that I'm back in DFW.

She's an activist for the Syrian people and done local media work on location exposing the conditions, etc. At the same time she's always been a vocal Dem on her social media.

After DT hit Assad's assets for the alleged chemical attack, she went nuts on social media. Thanking and praising DT for someone finally helping her people. Unfortunately she remains a Dem, but no longer bashes DT like her norm before the strike.

I found both cases very interesting as these are people who were born in the countries we speak of and are very familiar with the ongoing problems with family still there.

Both very intelligent, lookers as well with a lot going for them. To hear them praise DT for his actions regarding their native countries when neither was a fan (one a declared enemy) kind of put things in a different perspective.

 

[Mr. Deez]

On a different note, but related to main topic...

So a few years back I dated a female born in Afghanistan. Amazing person and still a dear friend. She's no longer Muslim, but her sister who also lives in Texas is.

Funny thing is her sister is a die hard DT fan that detests Liberals. She was that way all through the primaries as well and very vocal on social media. I was taken back when I saw it for myself. An Afghani born Muslim is die hard MAGA.

The reason I'm even mentioning this is I got a voicemail yesterday from my friend (the non-political sister) who said how much she supports DT's new position in Afghanistan. Said I'd be happy to know she's becoming a DT convert.

Even more ironic...I also casually dated a female from Syria (Muslim) back in early 2000's. We've reconnected as friends recently now that I'm back in DFW.

She's an activist for the Syrian people and done local media work on location exposing the conditions, etc. At the same time she's always been a vocal Dem on her social media.

After DT hit Assad's assets for the alleged chemical attack, she went nuts on social media. Thanking and praising DT for someone finally helping her people. Unfortunately she remains a Dem, but no longer bashes DT like her norm before the strike.

I found both cases very interesting as these are people who were born in the countries we speak of and are very familiar with the ongoing problems with family still there.

Both very intelligent, lookers as well with a lot going for them. To hear them praise DT for his actions regarding their native countries when neither was a fan (one a declared enemy) kind of put things in a different perspective.

Syria and Afghanistan? I thought I was a man of the world dating a girl from Peru back in the day, and you've been doing a full "tour of the Middle East." Not sure I could have dated a Muslim chick. To much risk that I'd be the only "crusader" around when she decided to start her jihad.

 

[Brad Austin]

I was a man of the world dating a girl from Peru back in the day, and you've been doing a full "tour of the Middle East." Not sure I could have dated a Muslim chick. To much risk that I'd be the only "crusader" around when she decided to start her jihad.

Since 2007 I've strictly dated foreign born American women. Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern mostly. The majority fell in the first two groups.

Asian in general seems to be the best option for a good wife. But the hotness and passion of fit South American women is second to none. Volatility, not so great.

The Syrian was the only Muslim in the ME group, but that was very casual and back in 2003. Just so happens we both live in Frisco now so we're discussing catching up.

I'm with you on not seriously dating a practicing Muslim. I have friends who are, but it's just not compatible for long-term results on my end.

Being raised traditional in a close, loving, respectful family, I find foreign born American women are a much better match for the values and behaviors of American born females back when I grew up. Not to mention the exotic physical appeal is phenomenal.

The greatest benefit has been learning first hand how amazing people can be from all over the world. Even after dating, I've gained great friendships with very solid people.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Since 2007 I've strictly dated foreign born American women. Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern mostly. The majority fell in the first two groups.

Asian in general seems to be the best option for a good wife. But the hotness and passion of fit South American women is second to none. Volatility, not so great.

The Syrian was the only Muslim in the ME group, but that was very casual and back in 2003. Just so happens we both live in Frisco now so we're discussing catching up.

I'm with you on not seriously dating a practicing Muslim. I have friends who are, but it's just not compatible for long-term results on my end.

Being raised traditional in a close, loving, respectful family, I find foreign born American women are a much better match for the values and behaviors of American born females back when I grew up. Not to mention the exotic physical appeal is phenomenal.

The greatest benefit has been learning first hand how amazing people can be from all over the world. Even after dating, I've gained great friendships with very solid people.

A few things of note here. First, presumably something went wrong in 2007. I'm not saying there's something wrong with dating foreign women. Everything you've said about the women from these areas is probably largely true. However, I'm just not sure sure I could write off American born women.

Second, from what you describe (the traditional background, close family, etc.), I don't think your real problem is with American women. I think it's with urban Western women. For example, I think you'd have a worse time with a woman from Brussels than with a woman from Frisco.

Third, I'm not sure if you've considered this, but I think you might find some luck by venturing outside the urban areas. For example, when I lived in Austin and realized that young urban women would make crappy wives, I dated and married a girl from Belton. It's country enough to be traditional and not to have that big city snobbishness and shallowness, but it's close enough to the city that being educated was a priority and that driving to see her wasn't an ordeal. Before completely writing off American women, you want to try something similar. One thing you have to watch out for is Aggies. They come across the right way, but once you get to know them that crazy Aggie garbage comes out. Definitely write them off.

Or you could just keep having fun on the world tour. Lol.

 

[Brad Austin]

Lot of good points there, Deez. The urban angle is dead on. I'm from small town Texas but lived most of my adult years in big Texas cities. There's certainly a difference in the values and behavior of American women in these places.

I'm def not saying there aren't high quality American women out there. I still have lifelong friends from that group as well. Ironically, they're the smaller town ones you spoke of. For what I ultimately seek it's my experience the odds are much lower weeding through American born options to uncover one.

As for something went wrong that turned me off to American women. It's not one event as I don't have any overly traumatic splits or betrayals. Just seemed to be a repetitive lacking of the fundamental foundations I value dearly.

I'd say the switch was more a product of the unique, positive virtues and experiences with the foreign born than a preventative reaction to avoid failures of the past.

It was far more enriching in ways only foreign cultures could provide, and there was also a heightened physical attraction to foreign born.

As you may know, the hotness and passion of a gorgeous, South American woman is an experience no man should go to his grave without.

Looking at this through the lens of how to fix a problem is definitely not my perspective or an approach that fits the situation. I truly enjoy the unique experiences with foreign born and will likely go that route for the long term partner. Preference is not a bad thing.

Of course every person is their own individual with unique merits, so there's no ruling out anyone by place of birth. I'm always open to the diamond in the rough if it surfaces.

If there is an underlying personal problem to explore, avoidance of commitment might have some merit. But then again I also know exactly what I want in a connection and partner to warrant closing up shop.

Having parents who are best friends and still act like two kids in love after 51 years of marriage sets a high bar to meet. However it also provides a solid understanding of what settling is and why it's not in the cards.

It's all about faith for me. As long as that remains intact, it's all good. Patience is a virtue in matters of the heart and life defining decisions.

One thing I will point out and believe truly matters is that I'm not deceiving or 'using' women in my more mature years.

I may date a lot but am always up front and honest and don't push intimacy to get my rocks off and bail. It's all in good faith and I treat people with respect. One can only demand the same in return if providing that courtesy and decency.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We think in mostly the same way even if I didn't go with the same approach. I'm just really glad that I'm not out there anymore. It wasn't great when I was single ten years ago, but I think I'd hate it nowadays.

If I was still single, I'm not sure what I'd do. I might go seek out foreign women like you do. I don't blame you for it at all and definitely can see the appeal. In fact, a good friend of mine met a Chinese girl (an actual girl from China) on-line. After about a year of talking to her and visiting, they got married. I've met her, and she's really nice and adores him. Weird, but it seemed to work out for both of them. However, more likely, I'd either pursue somebody from outside the city as I did, or I'd go seek out a woman who was a little older than I and had more intelligence, maturity, and sense than your average younger woman had ten years ago and definitely more than they have today.