Reply With Quote
War is a business that lobbies the government. Politicians come and go, but the store never closes.
"It was set up that way, CC In our system, civil power calls the shots"
The MIC and VRWC have been calling the shots for 30 years, at least. War is just profits for the them. The politicians are hired to go along.
War is a business that lobbies the government. Politicians come and go, but the store never closes.
A decade long war in Afghanistan in response to a few Saudis with boxcutters. Support the troops!
I disagree.
War has always been subject to politics.
Vietnam was less the fault of political decision-making and that of upper military brass trying to re-fight WW2 in Europe in SE Asia in 1968. Could better political decisions been made? Sure. But I would not say that they "usually" end badly, simply because military operations are effected by politics.
To be clear:
I do think that politics can *definitely* make military affairs worse, I just don't think that one necessarily precedes the other by definition.
When Republicans vote to undermine the President's war aims, you might take that as a sign the relentlessly pro-war edifice is showing a few cracks.
OK, a decade long war on training camps.
For about ten years there it was like everybody's face froze.
The training camps were gone long ago.
If you don't take out the government that allowed them in the first place, then you simply get them right back after you leave.
We can't go until we have a government there capable and willing to keep those kinds of camps from coming right back.
As I said, we let central Asia fester once, and it didn't do us much good, although it would be highly amusing to me to see this area become China's problem.
Fighting the previous war, waving the bloody shirt.
Coming from you, that's a rather weak rhetorical sally, don't you think?
A 10 year occupation/nation-building effort in order to prevent the possibility of training camps.
U.S. is going to need to invest a lot militarily in major terrorist centers as long as we continue to help Israel the way we are. and U.S. support for Israel will never stop.
the worst thing that can happen would be for one of these groups to get their hands on a nuke because we've let them grow and prosper because we're not there to police what's going on.
ty, ty situation we're in. but an even tier one would be one where these idiots get their hands on a nuke and drop it on D.C. or NY.
exactly. 9/11 scratches the surface of what can happen to this country if we let these groups grow. all this work for absolutely nothing.
"what can happen to this country if we let these groups grow"
total bull .
WTC occurred because the Repugs were too busy vacationing in summer of 2001 after ramming through with Senate reconciliation their tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) while totally ignoring AQ and terrorism, and Clinton's and other's departing warnings.
Iraq and Afghanistan prove we waste more $Ts and 100Ks lives fighting these useless wars while "we're broke".
UCA is totally corrupt and its democracy is a charade. But you think the UCA can establish "freedom and democracy" in backward, tribal, ethnically divided, totally corrupt, ins ution-less Afghanistan, and you support spending $110B+/year until <years>, until "their government there capable and willing"?
Guns or butter? no contest, guns will always win it because UCA makes $Ts from the guns, while there's no butter, "we're broke", for the poor, sick, young, old, disabled, schools, public services.
What exactly is this non-sequitur supposed to mean??? I am genuinely at a loss as to exactly what you are trying to get across.
Could you, for once, maybe, please, expand the idea a bit, instead of some snarky pissant one-liner?
Aesthetic observation.
Your attempt to persuade was perfunctory, your sauce was weak, and don't blame me if you can't keep up.
(Waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 got old years ago, but it never got any less pompous.)
Does anyone know if RG was such a hawk when Bush was in office or did this just come about because "his guy" is the neocon in chief now.
According to extreme leftist/socialist/communist/anti-American NPR, $20B/year for only running A/C alone in Iraq and Afghanistan. UCA always chooses guns over butter.
I have always been something of a hawk.
That said, Iraq was a bad idea, executed with what amounts to criminal negligence for the first 3 years. Bush deserves to be in jail.
Afghanistan on the other hand was the right war, fought for the right reasons, but fought poorly and without sufficient resources because of Bush's ed adventure in Iraq.
There is a vast difference between cleverness and obscurity. I will blame you if you can't tell the difference. It is your job to make yourself clear, not mine.
Sorry I didn't get your "can't draw any logical conclusions from 9/11" memo.
Just because you might find the reference "old" or "pompous", doesn't make the point any less valid. Had I but known you were the arbiter of coolness in regards to logical arguments, I would have vetted it before posting.
The reality is that our security threats don't come from large nation states anymore. It comes from the parts of the world with less-than-functional governments.
China, for all the concern, is severely limited in its ability to threaten us militarily by the amount of trade it conducts.
We are left with having to cope with other nation's failings, such as Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. These countries have historically not had much in the way of government, and have harbored individuals with caustic ideas, sometimes with the blessings of the nominal government, often not.
Somalia, a nation where we are not so engaged as we are in Afghanistan, has become something of a magnet for wannabe mujahadeen to establish a new theocratic islamic state. Were we not to attempt to counter this, the fanaticism and financing of these elements would quite possibly give them the upper hand in the squabbles.
These kinds of second and third order consequences from what we do or don't do, catch up with us.
Our abandonment of Afghanistan provided perfect opportunity for the Pakistani-supported muslim fanatic groups to seize power in the vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawal. This was the first order consequence. The second order consequence was that these groups, having used the outside arab fighters to kick out the Sovs, felt obligated to give them a free hand, and tacitly supported the training camps there.
These groups have not been so thoroughly discredited not to regain power should we leave, and create a similar vacuum.
The point that we ignored these areas once before and it bit us in the ass, is a very succinct way of summing this up.
Just curious. What's your answer to containing terrorist groups in Afghanistan? You think these groups won't grow and get stronger w/o our being there?
We've basically just found out Pakistan has been an accomplice with these terrorists and it's widely thought that Pakistan has nuclear capability Iirc.
Were learning worse about the Middle East and your answer to this is what? Because it means nothing to criticize w/o providing a more viable alternative.
Who exactly do you think the terrorists groups will terrorize if/when we leave?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
