Donald Trump now advocating War Crimes to deal with ISIS.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
We are already bombing families. We're just not doing it effectively. We could ineffectively do this in perpetuity and kill many, many people along with their dreams and aspirations. There is always some collateral damage.
The only way to stop that damage is to fight the war decisively and win. This will also end the collateral damage.
We could also withdraw altogether except for the fact that they are at war with us whether we participate or not.

Jim

Funny, I haven't seen any ISIS members waging war against the US here in Louisiana. Which state are they currently attacking? We can never wipe out "terrorism", we are perpetuating it's use by showing just how effective it is. Brainwash a couple of idiots to commit some suicidal crap in the US and watch the US spend a trillion dollars fighting people who live in mud homes. Even better is said war just makes even more people willing to do crazy shit against us so in the process of spending a trillion bucks we make even more terrorists. When we wind down a decade later rinse, wash and repeat.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Obama may have a truly befuddled and ineffective Middle Eastern policy, but it's not like Bush's or anyone else's actually works. And to my mind, spending tens of billions and occasional lost American lives for no useful results beats hell out of spending a trillion and thousands of lost American lives for no useful results.

They could give the tens of billions of dollars to me and it would have a better effect than what they are currently doing.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,732
1,461
126
Funny, I haven't seen any ISIS members waging war against the US here in Louisiana. Which state are they currently attacking? We can never wipe out "terrorism", we are perpetuating it's use by showing just how effective it is. Brainwash a couple of idiots to commit some suicidal crap in the US and watch the US spend a trillion dollars fighting people who live in mud homes. Even better is said war just makes even more people willing to do crazy shit against us so in the process of spending a trillion bucks we make even more terrorists. When we wind down a decade later rinse, wash and repeat.

I personally believe the Cold War costing $6 Trillion might have ended between '65 and '70. I also believe USSR would've collapsed anyway. Instead, election of our own hardliners or adoption of a prolonged Vietnam conflict prompted the Soviets to oust Khrushchev and install their own. Gorbachev came on the heels of the Carter administration, and there could be lags in how an adversary might respond according to this psychology.

I might have dropped out of college or missed getting a graduate degree if it hadn't been for Cold War spending in California.

The worst wartime spending arises with the use of money in unscrupulous ways, like bribing local warlords, expenditure of materiel and lives. It isn't spent in the domestic economy, except for replacement of the materiel.

I only guess that the average fear-stoked person sees all risk as infinite, and therefore thinks more and more spending is the solution. But some factions turn around and say we're spending too much on education -- the expression is "throwing money at a problem."

Southland Corporation would not have had the tools to route it trucks loaded with corn-nut and Cola inventories at minimum cost if it hadn't been for the planning tools that arose from World War II. You don't win wars without being judicious about how you spend, what you spend it on, and how you deploy it. And then there's the arms-race phenomenon.

So yeah.