# Afghanistan



## Big Smoothy (Feb 16, 2010)

This thread is about the US involvement in Afghanistan. 

What are the objvectives?  What is "success?  

Here is part 6, but it sums it up, IMO.  Will post more parts if posters wants.






YouTube Video


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 16, 2010)

My dad sends me statfor for free since he used to be in Air America.  This gives a good and thoughtful analysis of our stratagy in afganistan. What is interesting is that even our CIA ( stratfor is the CIA AP news networks so to speak) feel cooporation with the non hardcore Taliban is inevitable and the key is Pakistan.



> The Afghanistan Campaign, Part 1: The U.S. Strategy
> Stratfor Today » February 15, 2010 | 1450 GMT
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100214_afghanistan_campaign_special_series_part_1_us_strategy


----------



## doctormomen (Feb 16, 2010)

i agree with you,
we can see how the soldiers themselves feel shame about this wars





YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 16, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> .....feel cooporation with the non hardcore Taliban is inevitable and the key is Pakistan.



Thanks for the info BDWoman. 

And upper-levels Generals have testified before Congress that Al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan.

With 12 Pushtuns in Afghanistan and many in Pakistan, I don't think "fighting" can really be succesful.

The US is also in the Helmund proving in the large Opium Poppy growing region.  Not only fighting the Pushtuns, but interfering with their economics.  

Not good, for PR.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 16, 2010)

This is one part of a great movie about the military industry,


YouTube - Why We Fight (4 of 10) 

Number five is great watch after this one.

It is hard for me to even figure what is justified, real, or necessary when so many people with so much power have such a vested interest in waging war for purely economic reasons.

I highly suggest watching all ten parts of this movie.


----------



## lnvanry (Feb 16, 2010)

nation is building is a must....hunting AQ was only one piece of the pie, albeit a large piece.  We've done the search and destroy route in Afghan before against the Soviets and look what the end result was.

Plus, there is a strategic reasoning behind maintaining certain troop levels and bases in the region...well beyond the scope of the Taliban.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

Spaullba, thanks for that segment on the MIC.

Ivanry.  I understand you're whole post below, except for the portion in bold.



lnvanry said:


> *nation is building is a must*....hunting AQ was only one piece of the pie, albeit a large piece.  We've done the search and destroy route in Afghan before against the Soviets and look what the end result was.



Is Afghanistan truly, a nation-state?  To the Western world, it is.  But not to the Afghans.  A person from Afghanistan will say they are Afghanistani to a foreigner but they identify with the ethno-linguistic group, regional clans family blood ties, and for some, Warlords.  This is where their identity lies. 

I don't believe in nation-building in general because of the costs, and ultuerior motives involved.  But in particular, Afghanistan is not even a nation-state in a sense of the word. 

Below is what I am starting to learn, as I've started to research this topic a little bit.  





> *
> Plus, there is a strategic reasoning behind maintaining certain troop levels and bases in the region...well beyond the scope of the Taliban*.


----------



## Vance (Feb 17, 2010)

Not to mention the fact that it's a relatively short-hop-skip-and-jump for the foreign jihadists who have swelled the enemy numbers to move from Afghanistan to Iraq.

You watch the Iranians arm them up while they wave them through.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 17, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> Plus, there is a strategic reasoning behind maintaining certain troop levels and bases in the region...well beyond the scope of the Taliban.


 
IE. The military industrial complex, US imperialism, and making money.


----------



## Vance (Feb 17, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> IE. The military industrial complex, US imperialism, and making money.


 
As opposed to all the other reasons for fighting wars such as...?


----------



## lnvanry (Feb 17, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> IE. The military industrial complex, US imperialism, and making money.



You can call it imperialism, but its simply projecting power and protecting strategic interests....The US has never colonized or and never occupied a territory for an extended period of time.  That was Europe's flavor.

What we typically do, is lease integral pieces of land and place bases (for logistical superiority) to control geographical choke points (Panama canal, Arabian Gulf, Melacca Straits, South Asian Sea, etc).  Since we lease the land and pay the host for the rent, governments are much more likely to work with us...plus locals benefit from the all support jobs.  In addition, the host receives the best defense in the history of man kind...the US military.

There been very successful examples of this in the past, Japan, Germany, France, and Kuwait.   We have (had in France's case) extensive military infrastructure in all these nations, and the majority of the host nation welcomes it.  The thing is, most of those nations have homogeneous populations.  Countries like Iraq and Afghan are not....so only one segment minority is going to welcome us, while the majority does not.  Difficult balancing act, but it has to be played.  Otherwise, we just repeat what happened last time in Afghan.

Sure making money is primary motive.  EVERY nation in history exploits to its advantage to make money.  And sometimes, it goes too far and we screw some poor central american or south american up beyond repair...which is a total shame.  There are methods to create win-win relationships even when one side gets a larger "winning" portion.

Getting to the MIC, its a powerful sector...but its not the most powerful by any means.  The financial and insurance industries hold much power than the MIC.  The MIC can *NOT* operate without funding.  Many financial powerhouses will loan to both sides of the war...and they help determine the winner in some historical cases.  They simply stop lending to one side, and it can no longer produce weaponry.  Stalin and Hitler both addressed how banking was ruining their countries.  Insurance is closely tied with the financial sector and is probably the most protected industry in the history since the middle ages.  If the insurance industry tanks, it takes down the whole market and all the federal pensions with it.  

**Side note**  I hope most of you know that AIG manages all USG employee pension

You could also argue that big pharma is on an equal footing as the MIC.  The MIC doesn't influence statutory requirements that the public MUST take their products.  You want your child in school?  They must get certain immunizations (some of them are still new mind you turning our kids into guinea pigs).  

The MIC isn't all gloom and doom as the movie _why we fight_ points out.  I've seen the movie, and I think it brings a lot of good points forward. 

HAL, KBR, and logistical contractors are horrid for tax payer efficiency
American culture has a naivety about why our country should go to any given war
The revolving DoD-Defense sector door creates an environment for potential corruption...and occaisionally is abused

But, there are loads of dual use technologies that stem from the MIC.  Like the internet that you are using right now (DARPA) or the microwave you use to cook your food (Raytheon) NASA trips to the moon (LockheedMartin ICBM-Trident research) GPS...geothermal imaging from high powered radio frequency.  The list goes on and on here.  Also, the jobs the MIC provide are virtually _all American_ and can very rarely be outsourced.

Point being, it is not as cut and dry and the movie portrays...but still one worth watching


----------



## DOMS (Feb 17, 2010)

Vance said:


> As opposed to all the other reasons for fighting wars such as...?



Cookies.  Some of the best wars ever waged were for cookies.

I like cookies.


----------



## Vance (Feb 17, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Cookies. Some of the best wars ever waged were for cookies.
> 
> I like cookies.


 
There has been a few that were fought for poon-tang as well.  Poon being something I am also a fan of. 

Sadly the scalability of poon-tang wars isn't really there.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 18, 2010)

They are there hiding, they are across the border in Pakistan. The US leaves and they are back in business. The US knows this and wont leave. Just like they haven't left Iraq like bama promised. This war must be fought to keep everything in control and kept off our soil.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 18, 2010)

dg806 said:


> They are there hiding, they are across the border in Pakistan. The US leaves and they are back in business. The US knows this and wont leave. Just like they haven't left Iraq like bama promised. *
> This war must be fought to keep everything in control and kept off our soil.*



you really believe that?


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

I would think that spending even half of the money we are spending on these wars on direct security of our own borders and on our own land would make us much more secure than parading around in some country across the world will.  But to each his own I guess..


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Robert said:


> you really believe that?



since september 11 how many US civilians have died on US soil? seems like kicking their asses on their home field is working


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

Before september 11th how many people did? You really cannot prove that the lack of a terrorist attack is due to our involvement in the ME.  One can speculate, nothing more.

September 11th was an anamoly. I don't personally believe our involvement in the ME is more effective or efficient than focusing on fortifying our own borders and security at home would be.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Before september 11th how many people did? You really cannot prove that the lack of a terrorist attack is due to our involvement in the ME.  One can speculate, nothing more.
> 
> September 11th was an anamoly. I don't personally believe our involvement in the ME is more effective or efficient than focusing on fortifying our own borders and security at home would be.



and what do we need to do to fortify our boarders? a fence maybe?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Before september 11th how many people did?



The USS Cole?
The _four_ embassy bombings (killing over 200 people).
The Khobar towers?
The US training center in Saudi Arabia?

And that's just off the top of my head.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 18, 2010)

DOMS said:


> The USS Cole?
> The _four_ embassy bombings (killing over 200 people).
> The Khobar towers?
> The US training center in Saudi Arabia?
> ...


 

Ah what 4 attack we need to talk some more to them


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

I was actually thinking of something more like this


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

DOMS said:


> The USS Cole?
> The _four_ embassy bombings (killing over 200 people).
> The Khobar towers?
> The US training center in Saudi Arabia?
> ...


 
Not one of those were in the United States, I suppose you could say embassy's are part of our country but I wasnt thinking that way.  All of these would likely have been avoided if we were not such a militaristic and imperialistic country.  There must be some reason we are so much more hated than any other country in the world, and I would bet it isnt completely everyone elses fault.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

This is a great article on why people hate America

Why People Hate America: A Summary of Anti-Americanism


----------



## DOMS (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Not one of those were in the United States, I suppose you could say embassy's are part of our country but I wasnt thinking that way.  All of these would likely have been avoided if we were not such a militaristic and imperialistic country.



True, but 9/11 was part of the string of events.  Clinton did little in the way of making the US look strong after each of those attacks.  He made us look ineffectual.  Each attack was successively more brazen than the last, which culminated in 9/11.

If Bush, though superior fire power and government intelligence, showed that we weren't going to take it any more.  If anyone believes that the push post-9/11 did nothing to put wrench in that series of attacks, doesn't know jack.



Spaullba said:


> There must be some reason we are so much more hated than any other country in the world, and I would bet it isnt completely everyone elses fault.



Reason?  It's because, contrary to what so many ass-hats want to believe, the US is the most power, most affluent, country on the planet.  Bar none.  That's all you have to do to be hated.  Sure, we have leaders that make ass-hat decisions, but even if they were Mahatma-fucking-Ghandi, people would still hate the US.  The _*only*_ thing we could do is to make the world happy would be to give away all our possessions and our lands.  Anything short of that isn't going to get rid of the haters.  And since that's what it'll take: fuck it.  We do what we have to do to make our lives better and that's it.  

Never mind the fact that the US gives out more aid to the world _*every year*_ than the next several countries combined.  Ultimately, that effort is a waste.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Not one of those were in the United States, I suppose you could say embassy's are part of our country but I wasnt thinking that way.  All of these would likely have been avoided if we were not such a militaristic and imperialistic country.  There must be some reason we are so much more hated than any other country in the world, and I would bet it isnt completely everyone elses fault.



what the hell are you talking about? this shit happens in Spain and Germany as well as other European countries. when will people get it through their skulls that radical islam has declared war on Christianity? I don't give a damn what country you live in. this doesn't have to do with the evil American empire. what a load of BS


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Terrorism in Spain - Al Qaeda Madrid Bombings Timeline - Time Line of Events of the March 11 Bombings in Madrid - 11M Bombings
2006 German train bombing plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

I never said it didnt happen to other countries, I said it happens most in to the US. If you would take time to read the essay I posted you would see that the idea that these Islamic terrorists have declared a war on Christianity is tied to how our country has treated their own. They view our military presence in the ME (which has been going on for decades, long before they were attacking us) as a way in which Christianity and the US specifically are trying to repress them, and they believe that we have declared a war on Islam (and their country's) before they ever "declared war" on Christianity. We have had our hands in the ME for our own interests with complete disregard for the people there for decades. We have supported repressive regimes and leaders only to declare them evil and terrorists once they turned their behavior on us (ie Sadam, Osama, Iran, Castro etc). We have a military presence virtually all over the world for reasons unknown to majorities. People have been made to believe that the reasoning behind terrorists motives in the ME are completely based around religion or that they "hate freedom and democracy". This is not true, however it is very convenient for our government to shove down our throats and brainwash us into believing. The true reasons (although definitely linked to religion) are much more complex and sensical (sensical=/= justified).

Seriously read the essay, it is lengthy but it is a good read and it is not a trashing the United States or anything, actually quite the opposite. 

Also, in terms of how much we give, while it is true that we give the most money total in aid. In proportion to our total GDP we give the very least out of all "developed" nations:
*Foreign Aid: USA is Stingiest of the 22 Most Developed Countries*


The USA claims to be, in absolute terms, the world's biggest giver and this is true. However, as a proportion of its wealth the USA gives _least_ when compared to all 22 of the worlds' most developed countries.


“[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. [...For example Japan gives more even in absolute terms...] Absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share."​If we started caring about the world as whole and not just ourselves and if we were to adopt an isolationist approach as the founders of our country intended then we would not be hated so much and likely not be the victims of so much violence.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> [/INDENT]If we started caring about the world as whole and not just ourselves and if we were to adopt an isolationist approach as the founders of our country intended then we would not be hated so much and likely not be the victims of so much violence.



yea, we tried the isolationist approach up until ww1 and ww2. how did that work out? the second something goes wrong in the world every country turns to us to  see what we are going to do about it. like it or not we are members of the world and we have to be involved. its the only way we are going to have an economy. thats just how it is. if my government is doing things to ensure that our goods and services have places to go and I have gas for my car, well thats what i elected them for.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> yea, we tried the isolationist approach up until ww1 and ww2. how did that work out? the second something goes wrong in the world every country turns to us to see what we are going to do about it. like it or not we are members of the world and we have to be involved. its the only way we are going to have an economy. thats just how it is. if my government is doing things to ensure that our goods and services have places to go and I have gas for my car, well thats what i elected them for.


 
The idea that we saved Europe in WWII is a complete matter of ignorance on our part. Again read the essay:

*World War 2: America is self glorifying?*

I would rarely consider this a point of hatred, but it is enough to cause many Europeans to verbally attack USA over its own opinion on its activities during World War 2. People curse, shout and argue at great lengths with seemingly unmovable Americans, and complain bitterly that America's late arrival in the war is not something they should boast about.
It continues, for example, in the film _Saving Private Ryan_ (based on a true story of a British expedition to rescue British prisoners), where an all-American ground force takes on Germany; whereas America sent very few soldiers into war. America only began to send men into the war against Japan after Pearl Harbour, and the numbers and aid that America put into the world are pale in comparison to the massive war efforts conducted by Russia (who crushed Germany with 20 millions of ground troops), France (for its bitter, endless and determined self defence) and the UK. The UK's air force and special forces were consistently very brave and effective (even though some of ground invasions of Germen held territory were ludicrously ill fated).
America _did_ supply vast amounts of material goods, but it did not throw itself, or its soldiers, into combat wholeheartedly. America's most consistent aid was against the Japanese, and not until Japan attacked America directly, and even then America eventually resorted to the massively indiscriminate nuclear bombs rather than "waste" men on resolute Japan.
The USA appears to be very self-glorifying, and there are multiple generations in the UK, France and Europe who upset and angry at America's rewriting of history. Russia's men, France's entire population, and UK's air force, were the principal opponents of Germany, _aided_ by American equipment (which for example was loaned and leased to the USSR, not merely given), for which the allies were grateful, but not tricked that the USA did not have its own interests at heart, like all countries in the ideologically-charged political atmosphere of the time. USAs entry to the war was forced, not chosen, their motives were self-defence not world-wide good such as was the case with UK, and their effort was slow and half-hearted, public opinion only turned in favour of the war at a very late date.
???In his war memoirs Churchill boasted that only in July 1944 did the British Empire yield to the United States in the number of divisions engaging the enemy. [...]The British and the American effort was dwarfed by the Soviets, who were then engaging about 70 per cent of all German divisions, something Churchill neglected entirely to mention.??? Alex Danchev (1994) in the "_Oxford History of the British Army_ (1994)18​There is an element of misunderstanding here, as Europeans consider World War 2 to be principally France, Europe, UK (with late American aid), Russia versus Germany, mostly forgetting about Japan. Whereas many American's will rightly remember Pearl Harbour and the Japanese more prominently, and probably give the combat in the Indonesian islands and the Pacific more importance than Europeans do
. 
Country Casualties
Russia-20 000 000 China-10 000 000 to 15 000 000 Germany & Japan-6 500 000inc. 1 000 000 German civilians Bengal-1 500 000(mostly indirect in 1943) Yugoslavia-1 300 000 Britain + colonials-620 000 Italy-500 000 France-500 000 Hungary-350 000approx. Poland-350 000approx. Romania-350 000approx. *United States-*300 000


???The Soviet economy had suffered enormous devastation. [...] The death of an estimated 20 million [Soviets] is an index of the enormous costs of the war to the Soviets. Although the United States had suffered some 300,000 casualties, the ratio of Soviet to American war deaths was about seventy to one.??? "American Foreign Policy" by Kegley & Wittkopf (1987)​*The Final Truth* is that without any of the allies, the war would have been lost. without material aid from the USA, Russia and the UK would have taken many more years to finally defeat Germany - if at all. USA bombers and UK fighters (Battle of Britain) were the only serious returns we made on Germany other than Russian ground forces. The much repeated phrase that "USA saved Europe" is very much untrue, and completely dismissive of the intense war that actually occurred far from the USA and for years without USA involvement. Russia saved Europe, so did the UK, so did France and the other allies... for any country to claim that it is more of a benefactor than the others is untrue and shows an emotionally disturbing lack of empathy. I would reckon that historically only the poor, suppressed Russian civilians and soldiers could claim to have saved anyone.19
-------------------------------------------------------------

And I completely agree that we need to be a part of the world.  However I guess our definitions of it are different.  To me being a part of the world does not mean policing it or having a military presence everywhere.  Nor does it mean completely disregarding the UN, national treatise or agreements because they inconveniance our agenda.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> *Foreign Aid: USA is Stingiest of the 22 Most Developed Countries.*



I have to go to sleep, so I can only address this bit right now.  I've seen this statement before and it is *ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!
*
Yes, in terms of other GDP, we give less, but in term of_ absolute dollars given_, we make the rest look like Scrooge.  They only like to point that out because it makes them feel better about giving less.  Plus, it gives them something else to bitch about regarding the US.

We give more, by a large margin.  Period.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> This is a great article on why people hate America
> 
> Why People Hate America: A Summary of Anti-Americanism



I only had a chance to skim through this, but it look spectacular.  It appears to be even-handed and reasonable.  

I'll read this in full tomorrow.  Thanks!


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

europe and others can try and rewrite history all it wants. before we entered ww2 the outcome was far from determined. we did not enter at some late stage to help with mop up duties


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

In Churchill's history of The Second World War he wrote of his emotions upon hearing that Japan had attacked United States forces at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Only "silly people, and there were many," underestimated American strength. For him, the entry of the United States into the war meant that the ultimate outcome--favorable for his country--was now assured. Feeling "the greatest joy" that the attack had arrayed his mother's country on the side of Britain, he "went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 18, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> yea, we tried the isolationist approach up until ww1 and ww2. how did that work out? the second something goes wrong in the world every country turns to us to  see what we are going to do about it. like it or not we are members of the world and we have to be involved. its the only way we are going to have an economy. thats just how it is. if my government is doing things to ensure that our goods and services have places to go and I have gas for my car, well thats what i elected them for.



The USA was never meant to be isolationist.  The founders never meant for us to be hermits.  The idea was that we have trade and friendship with all countries, entangling alliances with none.

Just look at the shitfest in Taiwan.  We are legally obligated by treaty to protect Taiwan, yet mainland China has the economic muscle to cripple our dollar (though it would be suicide for them as well).

It's that kind of a ridiculous mess the founders wanted us to avoid.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I have to go to sleep, so I can only address this bit right now. I've seen this statement before and it is *ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!*
> 
> Yes, in terms of other GDP, we give less, but in term of_ absolute dollars given_, we make the rest look like Scrooge. They only like to point that out because it makes them feel better about giving less. Plus, it gives them something else to bitch about regarding the US.
> 
> We give more, by a large margin. Period.


 
I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity. 



DOMS said:


> I only had a chance to skim through this, but it look spectacular. It appears to be even-handed and reasonable.
> 
> I'll read this in full tomorrow. Thanks!


 
No problem! =).



bio-chem said:


> Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at
> 
> A Newsboy Announces the Attack
> Redmond, CA Dec. 7, 1941 this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."
> ...


 
We did enter at a late stage that is a fact. It is true that without the US the war would likely have lasted much longer and been even more devastating, but that doesnt mean that the we saved the day by any means. The straw that breaks the Camel's back cannot take full credit for doing so. We may have pushed the war in the allies favor, but the fact of the matter is that we still played a smaller role than most of the other European countries involved and we suffered the least from the war.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 18, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity.
> 
> .



Or like someone claiming they are more charitable than bill gates because they give 10% of their middle income gross to charity while he only gives 5% of his gross.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 18, 2010)

That person has given up more of their own wealth to others, therefore I would say they are more charitable.  I guess it depends on how you operationalize the variable.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 18, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> since september 11 how many US civilians have died on US soil? seems like kicking their asses on their home field is working



9/11, had 2,900+ casualties in the US.

In Iraq, over 4,000.  

I understand the Afghanistan mission 8 years ago.  Go after Al-Qaeda.

But now the mission has changed.  It's the Taliban (yes, they allowed AQ to operate in Afghanistan areas) and there are many warlords and family tribes, as Afghanistan is a nation-state only in name.

Was Mullah Mohammed Omar the true leader of Afghanistan, then?  Is Hami Karzai the true leader now? 

No, on both counts. 

There are many leaders in "Afghanistan."

If the US wants to go after Al-Qaeda, they'll have to go into Pakistan, correct? And the Pakistani gov (which has been under pressure internally) does not want this action by the US).

So, why in Afghanistan 8+ years later?

To keep Al-Qaeda from returning to operate and train in Afghanistan? Perhaps that is _part of the reaons._

But, let's look at the BIG picture. The entire region itself.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 18, 2010)

The author of this article below uses a few too many adjectives, and she has her own bias.  But her points are worth looking at:



> *U.S. Occupation and the Corrupt, Mafia-state of Hamid Karzai*
> 
> By Mike Whitney
> 
> ...



Link & Entire: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24172.htm


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> I don't know how you can really say that. I mean that is like saying you expect Bill Gates and yourself to give the same amount of money to charity.



No, it's like saying that since Bill _only_ gave a _billion_ dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.

Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> 9/11, had 2,900+ casualties in the US.*In one day*
> 
> In Iraq, over 4,000.  *In 7 years*



Compare those numbers to the 5,000 that the Americans lost at Omaha beach on D-Day alone. But outcome is all that matters. If a horribly evil regime like sadam had gets replaced by a decent government then I call it a success.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> No, it's like saying that since Bill _only_ gave a _billion_ dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.
> 
> Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.



exactly.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> No, it's like saying that since Bill _only_ gave a _billion_ dollars (a fraction of what he has) to charity and that I gave $30,000 (a large chunk of my yearly income) that calling Bill a stingy bastard is somehow appropriate or that my donation is somehow equal to his.
> 
> Like I said, the people that call the US stingy are just trying to make themselves feel better about giving less.


 
Um... I would agree with that statement...

Whoever gives a larger portion of their income that year is more charitable IMO.  For us to say that we are this amazingly charitable nation when we are giving .1% of our GDP in aid while other countries are giving .7% to 1% is ridiculous.  I think most statisticians would agree that you need to look at it in terms of how capable a country is of giving versus how much they actually give when determining how charitable a country is.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Compare those numbers to the 5,000 that the Americans lost at Omaha beach on D-Day alone. But outcome is all that matters. If a horribly evil regime like sadam had gets replaced by a decent government then I call it a success.


 
A horrible regime that we supported and put into power to further our own interests that backfired horribly..


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> A horrible regime that we supported and put into power to further our own interests that backfired horribly..



well I agree that we supported him, but I've not seen anything that shows we put him into power. either way hindsight and all that


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Hindsight bias is true, but this is by far not the first regime we have supported and/or put into power.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Um... I would agree with that statement...
> 
> Whoever gives a larger portion of their income that year is more charitable IMO.  For us to say that we are this amazingly charitable nation when we are giving .1% of our GDP in aid while other countries are giving .7% to 1% is ridiculous.  I think most statisticians would agree that you need to look at it in terms of how capable a country is of giving versus how much they actually give when determining how charitable a country is.



I'm willing to bet that 10 out of 10 starving people that live off the generousity of the US would tell a statistician to go to hell.  Your opinion doesn't feed people either, but absolute dollars do.  

Really, quibbling over how much of a country's GDP is donated is petty.  It's like have a dick measuring contest where the 5'3" loser bitches that the winner's 10 inch wonder shouldn't be considered better because he's 6'4".  No matter how you look at it, it's bigger.

Also, you really, really need to be careful about believing people when they have an agenda.

For example, take infant mortality.  Some Europeans just love to point out that the US has a higher rate of infant mortality.  What they don't tell you is that they report differently than the US.  In Europe, if a baby is born under 2 pounds and dies, it doesn't count as an infant death.  In the US, no matter what the baby's weight, if it dies, it counts as an infant death.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

+1 to DOMS for knowing his shit


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I'm willing to bet that 10 out of 10 starving people that live off the generousity of the US would tell a statistician to go to hell. Your opinion doesn't feed people either, but absolute dollars do.
> 
> Really, quibbling over how much of a country's GDP is donated is petty. It's like have a dick measuring contest where the 5'3" loser bitches that the winner's 10 inch wonder shouldn't be considered better because he's 6'4". No matter how you look at it, it's bigger.
> 
> ...


 
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how you gauge how charitable a country is... There are people alot more smart than both of us on both sides of the argument.

And I realize everyone has their own agenda. That is the exact exact point I have been trying to make in my posts. We have a corporate (and thus an imperialistic) agenda that has nothing to do with national security or the safety and rights of people from other countries, but everything to do with our own economic interests. James Madison warned us of allowing factions (in this case corporate America) to have too much power in government yet this is exactly what has happened. Our entire country is driven by the success of our businesses and we are willing to go as far as it takes to make sure they continue to flourish, which includes expansion into parts of the world that strongly oppose our presence there (for good reasons).


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> I guess we will have to agree to disagree on how you gauge how charitable a country is... There are people alot more smart than both of us on both sides of the argument.
> 
> And I realize everyone has their own agenda.  That is the exact exact point I have been trying to make in my posts.  We have a corporate (and thus an imperialistic) agenda that has nothing to do with national security or the safety and rights of people from other countries, but everything to do with our own economic interests.  James Madison warned us of allowing factions (in this case corporate America) to have too much power in government yet this is exactly what has happened.  Our entire country is driven by the success of our businesses and we are willing to go as far as it takes to make sure they continue to flourish, which includes expansion into parts of the country that strongly oppose our presence there (for good reasons).



In the words of Toby Ziegler "They will like us when we win"


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> In the words of Toby Ziegler "They will like us when we win"


 
Win what?  Domination of their economic markets and funnel all of their dollars into our own country?  Doubtful.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

globalization benefits all


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Globalization through militaristic deceptive means? I don't think so.  It must be consensual to ever be appreciated or successful.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

deceptive? you are starting to loose the moral high ground.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Yes, deceptive.  We have convinced the public that we are fighting for democracy and freedom when we are actually fighting for economic reasons.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Yes, deceptive.  We have convinced the public that we are fighting for democracy and freedom when we are actually fighting for economic reasons.



Like most things in life, it's not done for a single reason.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Indeed.  There is always a order of importance though.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 19, 2010)

Robert said:


> you really believe that?



Sure...what's to stop them from re-training and entering our soil to do harm if we leave? And they do want to do harm to us IMO.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

dg806 said:


> Sure...what's to stop them from re-training and entering our soil to do harm if we leave? And they do want to do harm to us IMO.



And, as Bill Clinton has shown, if you do nothing, they *will* come.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 19, 2010)

On a side note........maybe some of the training I have had to respond to incidents and things I have been taught about these groups lead me to believe it. But the evidence I have seen is pretty damn convincing. And that is having an open mind.........


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I believe that spending billions of dollars in homeland security would be money better spent than occupying their country is (and less lives lost). Many would also argue that they would not be attacking us if we did not have such a massive military presence in their country, even before 9/11.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  I believe that spending billions of dollars in homeland security would be money better spent and less lives lost than occupying their country would be.



Trying to bring democracy to the Middle East is useless.  It's not going to happen.  We should just kill who we need to kill and then go home.



Spaullba said:


> Many would also argue that they would not be attacking us if we did not have such a massive military presence in their country, even before 9/11.



And "many" would be morons.  They hated the US even before the war started in 1990.  They're just getting better at killing people.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

We were involved in the ME way before 1990.  So it makes sense the animosity to go back before then. Goes all the way back to the 50s when we fucked up Iran's government (as I am sure you know)... I take it you believe the theory that certain Muslims just hate Christianity? This may be somewhat true, but it is because of how Christian nations have treated Muslim nations as pawns and inferiors long before they ever attacked us. 

I think convincing a Christian nation that they hate us solely because of our religion is a very convenient way for the government to rally its people and get them to support whatever attrocities they intend to commit for their true agenda.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Trying to bring democracy to the Middle East is useless. It's not going to happen. We should just kill who we need to kill and then go home.


 

I completely agree.... Thats what I have been saying all along. It is not going to happen nor should we have even tried to make it happen in the first place. The idea that "anything different from ourselves is wrong"' has been the culprit of pretty much all hatred and wars in history. Let other people run their countries how they want to.

And if as a global community we feel we need to get involved somewhere, do it in conjunction with the UN not on some Rambo world police shit.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

and thats where the whole argument goes off the track. the UN doesn't have any type of moral compass. The UN is the most ineffective organized body in the history of the world


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

It is ineffective because countries like our own show complete disregard for their authority and put their own agenda first.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> We were involved in the ME way before 1990.  Goes all the way back to the 50s when we fucked up Iran's government...  I take it you believe the theory that certain Muslims just hate Christianity? This may be somewhat true, but it is because of how Christian nations have treated Muslim nations as pawns and inferiors long before they ever attacked us.


 
Are you kidding?  It goes all the way back to the Crusades, maybe even earlier.  It doesn't matter though, there's is a violent fucking culture.  They hate just about everyone, even each other.

The Soviets weren't Christians.  And the entire world was a chessboard with pawns on it, with the Soviets and the USA as the players.  We _had_ to make moves in the Middle East, all over the globe, really.

Sure, they have some valid reasons to hate us, but they have far more excuses.



Spaullba said:


> I think convincing a Christian nation that they hate us solely because of our religion is a very convenient way for the government to rally its people and get them to support whatever attrocities they intend to commit for their true agenda.



Atrocities?  The war with Saddam was one of the cleanest in history.  Feel free to look it up.  

As for making it a Muslim vs. Christian thing, that wasn't a lie.  It also wasn't the major reason that Americans backed the war--It was _terrorism_.  We'd just been hit hard by terrorist and Saddam had ties to terrorism, therefore, he had to die.

And, pray tell, what is the "true agenda"?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> It is ineffective because countries like our own show complete disregard for their authority and put their own agenda first.



authority? 

of course countries put their own agenda first. just like states put their agenda first in congress. thats how it's designed


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

As far as I know the United States was not a nation during the Crusades...  I was referring to our country not Christianity.  I am not religious and I identify very little with Christianity.  I am talking about recent history, post-industrialized society.

And I am not making an attack on Christianity either.  I am saying that you claiming that the nation of Islam is a violent hateful group of people has just as much credibility as saying that Christianity is a violent and hateful group of people.  

There have been over 100,000 civilian deaths since we entered Iraq.  Doesn't sound so clean to me.

The real agenda, (as I have said in multiple posts) is economically motivated.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> And if as a global community we feel we need to get involved somewhere, do it in conjunction with the UN not on some Rambo world police shit.





bio-chem said:


> and thats where the whole argument goes off the track. the UN doesn't have any type of moral compass. The UN is the most ineffective organized body in the history of the world



Bio is right on.  Because the UN is an international body, it's supposed to make them somehow superior?  More knowledgeable?  More moral?

This is the same outfit whose president's son used the Oil for Food plan to skim millions, possibly billions, for himself.  The same outfit that put China on the Human Rights council, put Zimbabwe at the head of the Commission for Sustainable Development,  and won't recognize any country as a terrorist state.  And that's just a tiny bit of why the UN blows.

You really need to lose the idea that just because they're not us, that they're any better.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> authority?
> 
> of course countries put their own agenda first. just like states put their agenda first in congress. thats how it's designed


 Authority probably isnt the right word.  But the UN would work better if people would be more willing to work for a global good versus a personal good.  I realize this will probably never happen, but oh well.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

Where in any of my posts have I said I believe any country is better than our own. I am simply arguing that we are not right in this situation or at least not handling it the right way, neither are the actions of the other side. You are the one who seems to have the idea that we are better than all other countries. I am arguing that we are no better, I have never said we are any worse.

We have had a shitty policy in the ME for the last century and unfortunately we are paying for it now.  However our reactions are following the same shitty policy.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> Authority probably isnt the right word.  But the UN would work better if people would be more willing to work for a global good versus a personal good.  I realize this will probably never happen, but oh well.



the only way to make it work is to develop a system where the two are the same. when adam smith wrote the wealth of nations he understood that you have to have the invisible hand in play or the system won't work to benefit all


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> As far as I know the United States was not a nation during the Crusades...  I was referring to our country not Christianity.  I am not religious and I identify very little with Christianity.  I am talking about recent history, post-industrialized society.



My point was that they hate us for shit going back a lot earlier than the 1950s.



Spaullba said:


> And I am not making an attack on Christianity either.  I am saying that you claiming that the nation of Islam is a violent hateful group of people has just as much credibility as saying that Christianity is a violent and hateful group of people.



Oh, wait... I wasn't aware that our government was killing gays, stoning women to death for adultery, beating women because they drank a beer, cutting the hands of off thieves, and the like.  Then yes, by all means, we're just like them.



Spaullba said:


> There have been over 100,000 civilian deaths since we entered Iraq.  Doesn't sound so clean to me.



You do realize that the number you did a quick Google for and found (probably antiwar.com) goes back to 1990, right?  Also, are all of those deaths at the hands of Americans?  Even more important, how many of those were done by the US during the actual war to get Saddam?  How many were soldiers and how many were civilians.  You're number don't talk shit about that.



Spaullba said:


> The real agenda, (as I have said in multiple posts) is economically motivated.



And nothing at all to do with safety.  Okay.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> My point was that they hate us for shit going back a lot earlier than the 1950s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its like deja vu with big smoothy for me. i don't know that i can handle another one of these.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

> Oh, wait... I wasn't aware that our government was killing gays, stoning women to death for adultery, beating women because they drank a beer, cutting the hands of off thieves, and the like. Then yes, by all means, we're just like them.


 
The governments that we supported and in many cases put into power? In most of the cases you listed it is the acts of individuals, not government policy. The LGBT community, racial minorities, and women are all subject to abuse everyday in this country by our own civilians.



> You do realize that the number you did a quick Google for and found (probably antiwar.com) goes back to 1990, right? Also, are all of those deaths at the hands of Americans? Even more important, how many of those were done by the US during the actual war to get Saddam? How many were soldiers and how many were civilians. You're number don't talk shit about that.


 
Youre right I did do a google search and the number was cited by multiple places, none of which were antiwar.com. I am not writing a scholarly research paper here and I am not going to go on a 20 minute long search for the most credible source possible. At least I am backing my opinions up with evidence and not calling people morons to justify my opinions.

I truly believe that our activity in the ME is much more economically fueled than it is by security, and I do not believe this to be that radical of a view.  Also, I do not hate my country or think any other country is better than our own.  To quote Immortal Technique, "I love my country I just hate the people in charge".

Anyways I am walking away from this thread. You are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine, neither of us are going to change the others mind over an internet forum. I have good reasons for believing what I do and I am sure you do as well. Good day.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

Whether this 'situation' has been a flowing field of golden daisies, or a seven mile shit storm is irrelevant. *If the United States did not take the initiative to step in when these rogue nations started showing their ignorant asses, we'd all be glowing in the dark by now.*


----------



## CORUM (Feb 19, 2010)

SPAULLBA..... you my friend are a douche!!! if you love the ME so much and you think the USA is so bad and we show our military muscle too much FUCKING MOVE!!!! and you ask do muslims hate christians just because they are christian??? you must not know too many TRUE muslims, (not talking about wanna-be nation of islam that people in the US convert too) yes they hate christians because they are christians!!! they do not like our way of life at all so they want to get rid of it because they feel it is influencing there country. by the way i work out here in california for the military and there is a unit out here full of true muslims from over seas that are cultural advisors and they will explain it too you. their opinion of ALL American women are they are loose, easy whores.... which they actually told some of the women i work with. your statements through this whole thread have been totally idiotic!!! have you ever left the US??? you talk bad enough about it, maybe you need to get out and see the world!!! since you support muslims so much i will tell you what..... do you have a sister??? how bout a girlfriend??? well how about i go offer your dad or your girlfriends dad... two goats, a horse, and the equivilant of about a hundred US dollars for them. the agree, now either your sister or girlfriend (as long as both above the age of 6) will be married to me, and i can do whatever i want with them. if they say anything, they have shamed me and her family so i can send her back and her father will kill her!!!! YEP great religion and belief!!!! i hate when i read people comparing the US to other countries and then talk bad about the US, you enjoy your freedom to talk shit about the government but you wont defend it........ DOUCHE!!!!!


oh by the way DOMS love you man!!! LOL like to see people support the country against morons!!!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> The LGBT community, racial minorities, and women are all subject to abuse everyday in this country by our own civilians.



Fair enough.  If you're done, we're done.  But I'll make one last comment that has nothing to do with the Middle East.

You have no idea what real abuse is.  None.

LGBT: The can't get married or be openly gay in the military.  That's a far cry from being killed. 

Minorities:  Do you mean stuff like college scholarship funds, and other organizations, that are only open to minorities?  Illegals that come here and have access to all of the benefits of being an American?

Woman: what the hell are you talking about?  Contrary to fallacy that flannel-wearing women tell, they get paid just as much, or as little, as a man.  They also get the lions share in divorce.  They have support groups for just about everything.  They have scholarships, and other financial assistance (small business loads, etc.) that are only open to women.

Not only do you not know what real abuse it, you also don't know what it's really like in the good ol' US of A.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

CORUM said:


> oh by the way DOMS love you man!!! LOL like to see people support the country against morons!!!



It's my pleasure.  

I'm sick to fucking death of people telling me that because I'm American that I'm somehow inferior to everyone else just because they're not American.  

To all of those people: A hearty fuck you!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> we'd all be glowing in the dark by now.



That probably sounds cooler than it actually is.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Fair enough. If you're done, we're done. But I'll make one last comment that has nothing to do with the Middle East.
> 
> You have no idea what real abuse is. None.
> 
> ...


 
I was referring to violence and rape and other forms of discrimination


----------



## CORUM (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> To all of those people: A hearty fuck you!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> I was referring to violence and rape and other forms of discrimination



Rape?  Do you know what happens to a rapists in this country?  He gets the book thrown at him, and probably a beating in jail.  If it's statutory, he gets ten years and probably killed in jail.

That's what the culture in the US thinks of that.

In the Middle East?  A chick went to the authorities and complained that a prominent member had raped her.  You know what they did?  They got angry with her for besmirching such a nice guy and ran a train on her.  Do you know what a "train" is?  Is when you get raped by a number of people, one after another.  She was raped because she reported a rape.

Other forms of discrimination?  You mean, like when people aren't nice to you or hate you for some stupid reason?  That's called_ being around humans_.  Sadly, that's a part of *every* culture.  I've already mentioned the real differences.


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

My entire point in this thread has been derailed and misinterpreted.  I do not believe any country is better than our own.  I love my country and think the majority of people here have good intentions and I wouldn't trade it for anywhere else.  

HOWEVER, I believe that our country has a shitty, repressive, imperialistic foreign policy that is motivated by our own economic gain.  That is all. I'm done.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> HOWEVER, I believe that our country has a shitty, repressive, imperialistic foreign policy that is motivated by our own economic gain.  That is all. I'm done.



Then run for office and FIX IT....and yes, you are done.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> My entire point in this thread has been derailed and misinterpreted. I do not believe any country is better than our own. I love my country and think the majority of people here have good intentions and I wouldn't trade it for anywhere else.
> 
> HOWEVER, I believe that our country has a shitty, repressive, imperialistic foreign policy that is motivated by our own economic gain. That is all. I'm done.


 
well then well done ... you fail again...


----------



## ZECH (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> I believe that spending billions of dollars in homeland security would be money better spent than occupying their country is (and less lives lost). Many would also argue that they would not be attacking us if we did not have such a massive military presence in their country, even before 9/11.



I would agree with the first statement.....but......................
It's been proven no matter how much money we spend or how much training we have, we CAN NOT 100% prevent an attack that way. Like my original statement said, if we leave, it opens the door to bring the fight here. They did it already. So I don't see that option ever working. Airport security proves that. We are no better off now than we were in 2001 and look and the billions we have spent. IMO, you got to attack the problem at its roots, and that is where they train and live and that is what we are doing. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Plans/objectives change everyday. You may not know it or hear about it, but it does. Look how long we have been in Korea and Viet Nam. The same thing will apply in this case. They will be there when we die.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> HOWEVER, I believe that our country has a shitty, repressive, imperialistic foreign policy that is motivated by our own economic gain.



Which is so-o-o different from everybody else...


----------



## Spaullba (Feb 19, 2010)

America's Empire of Bases

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire | | AlterNet

and the most telling:

World Wide Military Expenditures


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

Oh, no!  We're the only superpower, have one of the largest armies, most trained, most technologically superior military force, and we spend more than anyone else.  This is madness!

Or...it could just be that's the way it works.  

What's exactly is your point?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> HOWEVER, I believe that our country has a shitty, repressive, imperialistic foreign policy that is motivated by our own economic gain.  That is all. I'm done.


and we do it better than anyone else. God bless America


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and we do it better than anyone else. God bless America



Just imagine if he was in North Korea.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> America's Empire of Bases
> 
> The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
> 
> ...





Pffft. How old are you, son? Are you one of these little pantywaists that drowns himself in self-made tears of anti-American sentiment? What is your point, exactly..and from what life experience do you derive this soft-ish babble?

What's that I hear in the next room? .....Ah, it is the sound of *Big Smoothy calling you back to bed.*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)




----------



## danzik17 (Feb 19, 2010)

If we're in wars for economic gain, we're doing a really shitty job.  Don't know if you've noticed, but we're kind of in the middle of a near depression.

I do think we need to spend less on the military though.  We spend way too much money on shit we just don't need to be spending money on.  Pull the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan already - this war is going no where and is wasting money we don't have.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 19, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Pffft. How old are you, son? Are you one of these little pantywaists that drowns himself in self-made tears of anti-American sentiment? What is your point, exactly..and from what life experience do you derive this soft-ish babble?
> 
> What's that I hear in the next room? .....Ah, it is the sound of *Big Smoothy calling you back to bed.*


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> If we're in wars for economic gain, we're doing a really shitty job.  Don't know if you've noticed, but we're kind of in the middle of a near depression.
> 
> I do think we need to spend less on the military though.  We spend way too much money on shit we just don't need to be spending money on.  Pull the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan already - this war is going no where and is wasting money we don't have.



We could have saved a LOT more money if we had simply flown in there, Stealth Bombers, tip to tip. Did we have any problems after Hiroshima?


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 19, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> We could have saved a LOT more money if we had simply flown in there, Stealth Bombers, tip to tip. Did we have any problems after Hiroshima?



Hiroshima was a lot smaller power wise.  I've read studies / articles discussing theories about what would happen if we used a nuke of today's strength.  There was talk about radioactive particles getting caught in winds in the upper stratosphere and traveling thousands of miles.

I'm sure Israel wouldn't be too happy about becoming a radioactive wasteland either.

Not to mention that's an awful lot of oil to light on fire.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Hiroshima was a lot smaller power wise.  I've read studies / articles discussing theories about what would happen if we used a nuke of today's strength.  There was talk about radioactive particles getting caught in winds in the upper stratosphere and traveling thousands of miles.
> 
> I'm sure Israel wouldn't be too happy about becoming a radioactive wasteland either.
> 
> Not to mention that's an awful lot of oil to light on fire.



You're right. And Hiroshima was a *terrible* event. But the point I was trying to make was this...If you're going to fight a bad guy on his turf, it would be more effective to say as little as possible, look around, walk up, knock his ass out, and walk away instead of poking him in the chest and waiting for all of his cousins to show up.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 19, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> You're right. And Hiroshima was a *terrible* event. But the point I was trying to make was this...If you're going to fight a bad guy on his turf, it would be more effective to say as little as possible, look around, walk up, knock his ass out, and walk away instead of poking him in the chest and waiting for all of his cousins to show up.



And that's the truth of it.  A lot of retards claim that the US attack on Iraq was brutal and inhuman.  They have no idea how much worse we could have made it.  Even without nukes we could have leveled every building in Iraq without ever getting dust on a boot.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> And that's the truth of it.  A lot of retards claim that the US attack on Iraq was brutal and inhuman.  They have no idea how much worse we could have made it.  Even without nukes we could have leveled every building in Iraq without ever getting dust on a boot.



Man, sheeeeeot..They could have carpet bombed that place and left a big assed ash tray. But that wouldn't have been sexy enough for the media. Reality is just not that marketable...... So we had to put our guys out there to be killed by a bunch of cowardly camel jockeys who think it's the coolest to strap explosives to any of their relatives. And WE'RE the bad guys? I'll bitch slap anybody who says out troops are in the wrong....I'm sick of hearing it. War is UGLY...It's freakin' WAR. It ain't 15-love at the Country Club. So for all of those "We're in it for the oil" or "We're in this for the money" and "Our Country is too pushy" types......


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 19, 2010)

^^+1


----------



## lnvanry (Feb 19, 2010)

Spaullba said:


> America's Empire of Bases
> 
> The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
> 
> ...



Your 2nd link is missing some a key component on one of its maps...AFRICOM.  Kind of surprised that a DoD author and current prof would miss something like that


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Oh, no!  We're the only superpower, have one of the largest armies, most trained, most technologically superior military force, and we spend more than anyone else.  This is madness!
> 
> Or...it could just be that's the way it works.
> 
> *What's exactly is your point*?



I think his point is that it's a waste of money, and about grabbing natural resources.

Remember, Eisenhower's warning about the military Industrial-complex.

Very profound and prophetic. 






YouTube Video


----------



## KelJu (Feb 19, 2010)

DOMS said:


> And that's the truth of it.  A lot of retards claim that the US attack on Iraq was brutal and inhuman.  They have no idea how much worse we could have made it.  Even without nukes we could have leveled every building in Iraq without ever getting dust on a boot.




The attack WAS brutal. Whether it was inhumane depends on the motivation.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2010)

KelJu said:


> The attack WAS brutal. Whether it was inhumane depends on the motivation.



I meant brutal in the sense of not caring about who dies.  For a war, it was very clean.  Find me a war where an entire army was defeated with so few civilian deaths.  And the only reason that there were as many as there were was due to the fact that the Iraqi military purposefully hid next to school, hospitals, and the like.  Even given that, the civilian deaths were very low for a war between the second and four largest armies.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 20, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I meant brutal in the sense of not caring about who dies.  For a war, it was very clean.  Find me a war where an entire army was defeated with so few civilian deaths.  And the only reason that there were as many as there were was due to the fact that the Iraqi military purposefully hid next to school, hospitals, and the like.  Even given that, the civilian deaths were very low for a war between the second and four largest armies.



DOMS,

Were you there?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 20, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> DOMS,
> 
> Were you there?



were you?


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 20, 2010)

Yes i was several times..


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2010)

The Situation said:


> Yes i was several times..


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 20, 2010)

DOMS said:


>


 
were you?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2010)

The Situation said:


> were you?



Yeah, but I was on vacation.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 20, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, but I was on vacation.



LOLd I hear its good this time of year


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> LOLd I hear its good this time of year



I was in Paris.  It was awesome.  There were so many Germans.  France is practically a suburb of Berlin.  That's why France and Germany have always been such good allies.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 20, 2010)

my holiday was in the middle east all that gun fire and other stuff was like a warm breeze that would rock you to sleep


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 20, 2010)

The Situation said:


> my holiday was in the middle east all that gun fire and other stuff was like a warm breeze that would rock you to sleep



I hear you can't even tell the difference between the women and children when they blow themselves up. is that true?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 20, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I hear you can't even tell the difference between the women and children when they blow themselves up. is that true?



That's not true.  If it was a kid, you'd see the melted crayon.




On a completely unrelated note, I'm going to hell.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 20, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I hear you can't even tell the difference between the women and children when they blow themselves up. is that true?


 
little girl cover up. boys do not.. most women pretend to have ababy walk up to patrol hummers catch them off guard and blow themselfs up with the baby...fuck up


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 20, 2010)

DOMS said:


> That's not true. If it was a kid, you'd see the melted crayon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
yes the express hell elevator is waiting..


----------

