• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dear God, Why do we keep fighting these wars?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Oh you people in here spouting oil are so retarded. You realize we in the USA Produce half the oil we use, the next largest majority comes from Canada.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
For the last 8 years we have heard every excuse in the book and none of them make sense. We have been "occupying" Iraq for God only knows what? We went in there for WMDs, nada. Spending billions fighting for people who don't want us there. We are sending more troops to Afghanistan and now the Afghan President wants to talk with the Taliban to try and achieve peace. Wth?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_karzai

These mongrels have been killing their own people and you want to talk with them. We are financially ruining our own country and sending our men and women to die for what exactly? And this stupid argument about winning is so dumb it boggles the mind. We are fighting and we don't even who is the enemy. And these countries want these animals to be among them, so why should we fight to change their minds. We should bring our troops home starting tomorrow. Arm our allies over there to the gills and rebuild ourselves here. When they get out of hand just smoke the whole country and be done with it.
The secular part of the american public won't support what we are really fighting,,a war against a religion.

Until the early nineties, Islam was a (political) force that was easily contained with a policy of Rollback. It still works to an extent,,,to create instability in the region,,,to cause countries with a lot of resources and large muslim populations to spend heavily fighting non-believers. It takes a shitload of money from USA also, though.

Its kind of like having fly problem, and putting little piles of shit where you want the flies to stay.

Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 swatted at the flies, Clinton tried to domesticate the flies (http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton Embracing Islam selling out children.htm), Bush 2 was duped into thinking he could attract all of the really nasty flies into a big pile of Iraqui shit and kill them, and now you got Obama saying that we still got a fly problem and it is all Bush 2's fault cuz he didn't kill the right ones, but he is going to use Bush 2's plan set out better piles of shit and attract the right ones and kill all of them in 18 months.

Let the flies have their shit-holes. Quit swattin at them, quit trying to educate them, quit tring to kill them. Get as far away from them as possible. Last, but not least, you better stock up on flyswatters, cause when they run out of shit, they are going to come looking for more, cause that is what they do.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I'm currently profiting from these wars. Most expensive shit I ever saw in my life.
I was for years, and the P&N crowd called me chicken hawk, and all other manner of names. So I went on hiatus at work and joined the US Army. I'm profiting from the wars in more than one way now.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,783
2
76
The point being, the entire point of the US intervention was to get one tiny organization, namely Al-Quida. We totally failed in that mission, and somehow decided on getting a homegrown movement, namely the Taliban instead.

We want to believe that the Taliban are a bunch of animals, but they choose to regard themselves as freedom fighters with a mission of repelling the Western oppressors. Something the USA loved and subsidized when the Russians were the foreign oppressor being given the ole Afghan heave ho, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they become terrorists?

And the truth is somewhere in between.

But as long as we prop up a turd of a corrupt government, and do not fix the anarchy our military occupation has towed in its wake, a homegrown movement like the Taliban will continue to extend its control.

As for Al-Quida, we don't even know if they are in the region anymore, and Al-Quida can pick and choose between many unstable countries to use as a base(s) of operation.

In terms of Karzai talking to the Taliban, it may be a good idea to reduce violence. After all, they were the government of Afghanistan for quite a number of years. And Nato came in guns blazing and declared its right to kill any Taliban on sight. And then we expect the Taliban to not respond in the same way to Nato????????? Which is almost the generic equivalent in the USA of the Republicans doing the same to the democrats in the USA or vise versa.

Sadly, Karzai has been trying to promote talks with the Taliban for years now, and the Taliban has basically refused thus far. Nor has Nato been eager either. But as long as both sides have a kill on sight metric, we can only forecast continued violence. And General patraeus has already stated we can't kill our way out of the Afghan occupation. GWB tried it and we have moved backwards ever since.
The truth is not "somewhere in between." The truth is they always were terrorists, but when Russia invaded we took up the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and helped them beat Russia. They were terrorists then (just ones we liked because they were "terrorizing" our enemy), as they are terrorists now.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
For the last 8 years we have heard every excuse in the book and none of them make sense. We have been "occupying" Iraq for God only knows what? We went in there for WMDs, nada. Spending billions fighting for people who don't want us there. We are sending more troops to Afghanistan and now the Afghan President wants to talk with the Taliban to try and achieve peace. Wth?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_karzai

These mongrels have been killing their own people and you want to talk with them. We are financially ruining our own country and sending our men and women to die for what exactly? And this stupid argument about winning is so dumb it boggles the mind. We are fighting and we don't even who is the enemy. And these countries want these animals to be among them, so why should we fight to change their minds. We should bring our troops home starting tomorrow. Arm our allies over there to the gills and rebuild ourselves here. When they get out of hand just smoke the whole country and be done with it.
Come on man get with the program

Oil and Opium are big money and must be protected at all costs.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,344
9,073
126
Believe it or not... there are people in Afghanistan and Iraq who are very thankful to no longer have to live under the oppression of Saddam or the taliban. The problem is there was never a long term plan. Yes, they tend to kill themselves... so probably nothing will stop that after the last of the U.S. troops leave.
Why should we care about them? Are you saying we spend untold billions on foreign wars just so people in those countries can be thankful for us? What is this, some kind forced charity like welfare?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Most everyone thought Afghanistan was legit. To say otherwise is not so. The mission was to route out Taliban and and AQ. A mission we failed in treating tribes like garbage (and tribes is everything there way more powerful than Islam), taking on Iraq distraction, allowing escape of OBL, not protecting tribes who helped us and so on. So many many mistakes.

Iraq was a thorn in USA side for years so Bush used 911 as excuse to launch war and should be in prison for it. But as we know from Gulf on tonkin US presidents are never held accountable for their murder and mayhem.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Believe it or not... there are people in Afghanistan and Iraq who are very thankful to no longer have to live under the oppression of Saddam or the taliban. The problem is there was never a long term plan. Yes, they tend to kill themselves... so probably nothing will stop that after the last of the U.S. troops leave.
Iran is 100x more desperate for intervention than Iraq ever was - talk to some Iranian despora they'll tell you revolution is impossible because unlike in 1979 where SAVAK and Army got tired of shooting civilians, the 1.5 million fundi Republican Guard have no issues with that beliveing they are doing work of god. And Burma/Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, and well you get the point we can't save the world. Costs us too much men materials and money and makes other enemies along the way.

I guarantee you some Iraqi which had his mother or bother killed by a errant US bomb will commit terror in USA in future, not to mention about 3/4 the country hates us now.
 
Last edited:

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Most everyone thought Afghanistan was legit. To say otherwise is not so. The mission was to route out Taliban and and AQ. A mission we failed in treating tribes like garbage (and tribes is everything there way more powerful than Islam), taking on Iraq distraction, allowing escape of OBL, not protecting tribes who helped us and so on. So many many mistakes.

Iraq was a thorn in USA side for years so Bush used 911 as excuse to launch war and should be in prison for it. But as we know from Gulf on tonkin US presidents are never held accountable for their murder and mayhem.
Yeah Bush, Cheney and the rest of those assholes fucked us but the Press, the Dems and the people went along with it so while the majority of the blame is rightfully leveled on those NeoCon cocksuckers their's plenty of blame to go around
 

Dark4ng3l

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2000
5,061
1
0
The problem with these wars is that you can't fight a war on a budget and expect to win. You need to go all out. If they had sent 350 000 troops in Afghanistan the whole thing would have been done in 4 months. Instead they try and go with the bare minimum they think they need with their already optimistic estimates. When you need to win a war badly enough you put every single soldier that you have to make a completely overwhelming force and win as fast as possible.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan were wars for profit and not wars for defense/survival. Thats why it's a big screw up like it is.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Yeah Bush, Cheney and the rest of those assholes fucked us but the Press, the Dems and the people went along with it so while the majority of the blame is rightfully leveled on those NeoCon cocksuckers their's plenty of blame to go around
The soldiers and tax payers don't have the Defense contractor lobby. The U.S. Department of Defense's Policy Review Board who advises president is made up almost exclusively of former and current brass of defense contractors. Most congress people rely on those phat jobs defense contractors bring in their districts too. Whole system is a conflict of interest and pushing war instead of diplomacy.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You are right. THe US has wasted untold billions fighting Terror the last 8 years. We could have used the money to develop oil alternatives and pretty much bankrupted the true income sources for Al Queda. We could be light years ahead of the rest of the world in oil alternative sources and created a new industry and exports.

Thank God that people in the US are still clinging to their petty manufacturing jobs and ME oil or we might be in a sound position for the future.
Even if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan or Iraq, we STILL wouldn't spend the money on the poor and inner cities of the U.S. or pipe dreams like imaginary energy sources that somehow will magically appear and free us from Middle East oil. I don't understand why those on the progressive left in this country think that Democratic politicians give a shit about the priorities of the left-wing; they only care about getting re-elected and feathering their own nests. The average Democratic politician would just as soon sell the poor into slavery if it meant some more campaign contributions.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
The problem with these wars is that you can't fight a war on a budget and expect to win. You need to go all out. If they had sent 350 000 troops in Afghanistan the whole thing would have been done in 4 months. Instead they try and go with the bare minimum they think they need with their already optimistic estimates. When you need to win a war badly enough you put every single soldier that you have to make a completely overwhelming force and win as fast as possible.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan were wars for profit and not wars for defense/survival. Thats why it's a big screw up like it is.
There is two ways to win a war. Kill them all - (the threat of annihilation is enough) doesn't take anyone but a button pusher and is cheap or route out the terror element from a society. That is what you're talking about and it would require 400,000 according to fired generals who dared talked about it. Just like the guys fired for talking 200 billion dollars (a gross underestimate now). We can still win according to briefs I've read by SF on the ground but it will require cooperation with tribes, living with them, and not relying on central govt which afghans never respected.

Good read if you're interested
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,386
2
81
Even if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan or Iraq, we STILL wouldn't spend the money on the poor and inner cities of the U.S. or pipe dreams like imaginary energy sources that somehow will magically appear and free us from Middle East oil. I don't understand why those on the progressive left in this country think that Democratic politicians give a shit about the priorities of the left-wing; they only care about getting re-elected and feathering their own nests. The average Democratic politician would just as soon sell the poor into slavery if it meant some more campaign contributions.
LOL They already do. Most working families work over half a year for all the taxes dems put in place. Cell phone taxes arnt for the rich, Gas taxes, increased SS taxes, sin taxes and so on you cant flush a toilet without a tax. Anyone who worked for years understands this. Wait till their HC bill gets in and all our health insurance triples because dems made it so insurers could not discriminate like any other insurance business model. Dems are for tiny minorities of poor and riches.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The secular part of the american public won't support what we are really fighting,,a war against a religion.

Until the early nineties, Islam was a (political) force that was easily contained with a policy of Rollback. It still works to an extent,,,to create instability in the region,,,to cause countries with a lot of resources and large muslim populations to spend heavily fighting non-believers. It takes a shitload of money from USA also, though.

Its kind of like having fly problem, and putting little piles of shit where you want the flies to stay.

Carter, Reagan, Bush 1 swatted at the flies, Clinton tried to domesticate the flies (http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton Embracing Islam selling out children.htm), Bush 2 was duped into thinking he could attract all of the really nasty flies into a big pile of Iraqui shit and kill them, and now you got Obama saying that we still got a fly problem and it is all Bush 2's fault cuz he didn't kill the right ones, but he is going to use Bush 2's plan set out better piles of shit and attract the right ones and kill all of them in 18 months.

Let the flies have their shit-holes. Quit swattin at them, quit trying to educate them, quit tring to kill them. Get as far away from them as possible. Last, but not least, you better stock up on flyswatters, cause when they run out of shit, they are going to come looking for more, cause that is what they do.
Interesting perspective. I kind of like your use of a pest like flies, in that they carry pestilence and the different ways our national leadership used in dealing with them. You know, of course, that, like cockroaches, it is impossible to completely get rid of flies without "bombing" a place? And it still is better to do your best to be rid of them before they multiply out of control and drive you out of your house?

Here is a little bit of historical perspective, albeit rudimentary in presentation -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgiFvmGRdDQ

The Europeans are much more at risk due to the demographic trends, the open immigration policies, the abandonment of national cultures, the abandonment of Christianity and the general political correctness they are afflicted with. There is some pushback, but I wonder if it is going to be a losing fight for them. Lots of people there are now referring to what seems inevitable as "Eurabia."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmz77VPtWJc
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
There is two ways to win a war. Kill them all - (the threat of annihilation is enough) doesn't take anyone but a button pusher and is cheap or route out the terror element from a society. That is what you're talking about and it would require 400,000 according to fired generals who dared talked about it. Just like the guys fired for talking 200 billion dollars (a gross underestimate now). We can still win according to briefs I've read by SF on the ground but it will require cooperation with tribes, living with them, and not relying on central govt which afghans never respected.

Good read if you're interested
http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/wp-content/themes/stevenpressfield/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf
Thanks for that link to MAJ Jim Gant's piece on the SF approach. It pretty much reinforces the correspondence and conversations I have had with others in the special operations community on how to approach the situation there.

I went to the front page of Steven Pressfield's blog to read the commentary of Brigade Intel Officer Jim Gourley to the piece and response from MAJ Gant. These are also well worth reviewing as the discussion allows a further understanding of the practicality of adopting such an approach and highlights the typical concerns which are expressed by the non-SF community.

http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/

The Army leadership as a whole is still wrestling with how to do this right. Most of the SF ODAs want to fight the war MAJ Gant's way, but there likely has to be a different approach in the cities, maybe a variant of how the French paras approached the cities in Algeria, as it looks like control of the urbanized areas is a stated priority.

Like most efforts of this type, it is a work in progress.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Believe it or not... there are people in Afghanistan and Iraq who are very thankful to no longer have to live under the oppression of Saddam or the taliban. The problem is there was never a long term plan. Yes, they tend to kill themselves... so probably nothing will stop that after the last of the U.S. troops leave.
There are people in Iraq who are thankful that saddam is gone, however, they are not thankful for many other things that were done before and after the war. Thats my understanding from the Iraqis i know.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
... You know, of course, that, like cockroaches, it is impossible to completely get rid of flies without "bombing" a place? ...
Yet another lie. Boric acid works great as long as no pets have access to it. The roaches travel through it and carry it back to the nest. I know this from experience. You should know better (and maybe already do) but then facts won't support your arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Yet another lie. Boric acid works great as long as no pets have access to it. The roaches travel through it and carry it back to the nest. I know this from experience. You should know better (and maybe already do) but then facts won't support your arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid
FWIW, boric acid is ineffective with flies, though it works with cockroaches.

http://www.pesticide.org/boricacid.pdf

Flies are approached somewhat differently -

http://doyourownpestcontrol.com/flies.htm

I use creative and accurate language and you get all bent out of shape.

Karma is going to get you!
 
Last edited:

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
FWIW, boric acid is ineffective with flies, though it works with cockroaches.

http://www.pesticide.org/boricacid.pdf

Flies are approached somewhat differently -

http://doyourownpestcontrol.com/flies.htm

I use creative and accurate language and you get all bent out of shape.

Karma is going to get you!
So what you're saying is that your flowery rhetoric shouldn't be scrutinized for truth? That's fine as far as I'm concerned. It's good to know intent ahead of time.

I seem to remember, in a fairly recent thread, you referring to the one and only time you have addressed me. Reneging already?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY