backtop


Print 340 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Sep 20 at 2:06 PM


Air Force says new bomber would be purchased in larger numbers than the B2
Shaft getting larger for the Army?

The U.S. armed forces get huge chunks of money each year from Washington to fund various of programs across multiple branches of the military. Some of the branches such as the U.S. Air Force seem to grab the lion's share of the new projects in the eyes of many Americans. At the same time, arguably the most exposed and at risk personnel in the U.S. armed forces, the grunts of the Army, go with the same equipment that has been used for years.

The U.S. Air Force has many of the highest profile projects in the military including the tanker debacle that has been ongoing for years (and a winner still hasn't been announced). The Air Force also has the high profile and high cost F-35 Lightning II program that is over budget. The Air Force has many major projects in progress and is looking to add another new project to that list with USAF Secretary Michael Donley making the case for a new long-range bomber.

According to Donley, the new bomber would be focused on conventional long-range strike missions and will rely on existing technology to keep costs down. The bomber would be a stealth aircraft and purchased in larger quantities than the B-2 and serve for more than 30-years. General Norton Schwartz said the service hopes to finalize what it wants in the new bomber in time for the 2012 budget submissions and that the aircraft will be “optionally manned”. Presumably optionally manned would mean the aircraft could operate as a UAV or a conventional piloted bomber.

Donley said, "We are confident that a modern long-range strike platform not only has been, but should remain, a critical tool in the nation’s arsenal. Their ability to range the planet with operational flexibility have proven their value time and again."

This isn’t the first time we have heard of the Air Force wanting a new bomber. In May of 2009, the U.S. Air Force started talking about a new long-range bomber and in December of 2009, the Air Force announced that it was "probably going to proceed with a long-range strike initiative."

While the Air Force seemingly gets all the love, the U.S. Army is fighting a battle to modernize its forces. Many of the new programs the Army had in development over the last several years were ultimately cancelled. Notable cancellations included the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter and replacements for some of the self-propelled Howitzer canons fielded by the Army.

Despite the cancellations, Lt. General Daniel Bolger has defended the modernization program and maintains that the most important part is the modernization of the network for the Army.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I just wanted to say....
By Homerboy on 9/14/2010 11:02:47 AM , Rating: 5
That is a kick ass picture.




RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 11:07:18 AM , Rating: 4
The only better one would be a picture of the bombs impacting on terrorists. :)


RE: I just wanted to say....
By quiksilvr on 9/14/2010 1:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Or how about the innocent bystanders caught in its wake? War: It's fantastic.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By quiksilvr on 9/14/2010 2:03:48 PM , Rating: 3
So that magically justifies it? Oh, it happens. Ho hum, life goes on.

That's the problem with our military. We have too few tactical and professional soldiers and too many grunts.

Take the Iraq War. Do we send in a few seals to assassinate Saddam and then place false information online saying a terrorist group did it, thereby causing confusion and destabilization? NO! Lets send a buttload of tanks and jets and bomb an entire city full of "guilty" people providing food, shelter, ammo and other support to the "enemy".


RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:20:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Do we send in a few seals to assassinate Saddam


That would have been my first choice but unfortunately, there's this thing known as the Geneva Convention which prevents us from doing that.

There also have been several executive orders issued over the years that forbid it. So... it isn't really an option and I'm willing to bet that the United States assassinating another Nation's Leader wouldn't go over so well with the rest of the world, probably worse than us invading a country.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By mudgiestylie on 9/14/2010 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 5
Yes cause we pay soooo much attention to playing by the rules. We tried assassinating Castro, did assassinate pablo escobar, tried with saddam before OIF, and have deposed countless other people we disagreed with. We get away with this because other countries do it all the time, and we are too big for anyone to stand up to (at least big enough that it is really difficult and impractical to stand up to).


RE: I just wanted to say....
By raumkrieger on 9/14/2010 3:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
If I may toss some fuel on your ill-informed fire,

We need more USAF involvement, particularly bombers. We wouldn't be worried about Osama Bin Laden today if we had just flattened Afghanistan on Sept 12th. We could have done the same thing in Iraq.
If you want to talk about saving lives, think about our soldiers before the enemy please.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By lagomorpha on 9/14/2010 5:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, a few B52 sized UAVs full of VX gas and we wouldn't even need boots on the ground to neutralize anti-American regions. (*this may be tongue in cheek)


RE: I just wanted to say....
By psychmike on 9/14/2010 6:25:31 PM , Rating: 5
Wow. You have a really wide definition of enemy.

Do you think it's morally justifiable to flatten a country because those in power not elected by the population are insane? If another country had a problem with the foreign policy of the United States would you consider it morally justifiable for them to flatten Main Street?

Even if you do think it's morally justifiable, do you think it would work? Do you think all the other people in the world with similar extremist similar views would then learn their lesson? Or is it more likely to give ammunition to our enemies that the US does use military power to support economic and cultural hegemony?



RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: I just wanted to say....
By BSMonitor on 9/15/2010 10:06:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Should we not have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though doing so saved countless more lives than were lost? Me thinks if idiots like you were in charge back then, you'd rather have had hundreds of thousands of Americans die and millions of Japanese just to say you didn't drop it.


Ask the tens of thousands of innocent people who did nothing more than be born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ask their children or grand-children.... Oh, right... Did you choose to be born in this country? Did those who died there choose to be born there? What would we say if one of those bombs ended up in Detroit at the GM plants in 1945.. It would be a tragedy unheard of at the loss of innocent American civilians.

Spare us of your egocentric view of the world. NOTHING about dropping those bombs was heroic. In war choices have to be made to inflict the LEAST possible damage to innocent lives. Maybe that did bring an end to the war quicker than an invasion, but at what cost?? Would not a similar display of military might, say dropping one of those in the harbor off Tokyo done just as much to scare them into giving up?? I promise you that decision haunted Truman the rest of his life.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By knutjb on 9/15/2010 11:50:12 AM , Rating: 2
The nukes didn't bother Paul Tibbets who dropped the first bomb. You are conveniently ignoring the realities of WWII. Even after Okinawa the Japanese would not surrender. They were going to lose as many as it would take to save....the emperor. Also consider in Japan workers took home materials from the factories to spread out their manufacturing from the plants in case they were hit. That makes cities legitimate targets.

Are the side affects terrible, yes. Even considering those side affects the Japanese didn't want to surrender after the first bomb and all of it's devastation.

You need to get your historical facts in line. The bombs saved a projected 7,000,000 US lives from an attack on mainland Japan. Don't forget we didn't start the war, we just ended it.

Today we have the capacity to select the smallest weapon to do the job and not harm any more than required to get the bad guys.

War isn't pretty, it's a necessity that not all agree with. But when the other side clearly chooses to not negotiate diplomatically you are left with few options and doing nothing usually has greater side affects than acting. Think Iran-US Embassy invasion in 79. Carter's failure to act emboldened Islamic radicals which is our biggest threat today.
quote:
What would we say if one of those bombs ended up in Detroit at the GM plants in 1945.. It would be a tragedy unheard of at the loss of innocent American civilians.
Think World Trade Center Towers.

Dude you need to consider ALL information and views before you insert your foot into your mouth. The military is the big hammer in the toolbox of diplomacy and the one used when politicians and diplomats can't or won't negotiate.


By PaterPelligrino on 9/15/2010 12:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
I've lived in Asia for 25 years, 15 of those in Japan, and I can tell you that there is NO sympathy among the Koreans, Chinese, or Vietnamese for the Japanese atom-bomb victims.

btw, few people know that there were many thousands of Korean slave laborers among those who died.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/16/2010 2:53:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Ask the tens of thousands of innocent people who did nothing more than be born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ask their children or grand-children...


The Japanese occupied Korea from 1910 to 1945 and carried out a savage campaign to annihilate Korean culture, murdering the educated classes and destroying all traces of Korean civilization in an attempt to undermine Korean pride and identity. The Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names and forbidden to speak their own language in the colonial schools. Would there be a North Korea today with it's millions of starving, wretched people, or had been a Korean War, if not for Japanese colonization?

The Chinese suffered tens of millions of civilian dead during the Japanese invasion. Is the Rape of Nanjing any less horrific than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? Tens of thousands of Korean and Chinese children were kidnapped and forced to work as prostitutes serving the Japanese armed forces. At the end of the war, many of those young girls were murdered to prevent their story from becoming known.

Two million Vietnamese starved to death under Japanese occupation when their crops were diverted to Japan. That means that ten Vietnamese starved for each Japanese who died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I guess that's OK because starving is a nicer way to go - none of that nasty radiation business. Tho the Vietnamese really were innocent victims.

Whereas in Germany it's illegal to deny the Holocaust, in Japan it is social-professional suicide to suggest that the Japanese Imperial Army ever did anything unheroic in the first half of the 20th century. The murderous subjugation of the Korean people? Nope, it was a legal, treaty-sanctioned occupation. The Rape of Nanking? Never happened - it's all anti-Japanese propaganda. The invasion of China and the killing of tens of millions? Japan was merely trying to defend Asia from western imperialism. The kidnapping into forced sexual servitude of tens of thousands of Korean and Chinese children? Those girls were all willing professional prostitutes - even the 13 yr-olds. The biological experimentation on Chinese captives? Get outta here! History is what the Japanese say it is. An event denied is an event that never occurred.

A visit to the Hiroshima memorial gives the impression that the Japanese were just going about their picturesque lives - all tea ceremony and kite flying - when for no reason the murderous Americans decided to drop the bomb on innocent people. The brutal Japanese invasion of it's Asian neighbors isn't even alluded to. When the Koreans wanted to erect a monument to their own people, forced to work as slave-labor in Japan, thousands of whom were also killed in the atomic bombings, the Hiroshima city government initially forced them to place their monument in an out-of-the-way park far from the official memorial - they didn't want to pollute the self-pity fest with non-Japanese victims. Japanese secondary-school education stops at the Meiji Reformation - the 20th century never happened.

Nothing the Americans did in those bombings comes close, in terms of numbers killed or savagery, to what the Japanese had been doing in Asia for fifty years. And the Japanese still refuse any kind of heartfelt mea culpa. The hypocrisy of the people is breathtaking. The real victims of WW2 are the other Asian peoples - the Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Thais. etc - and it's not without reason that these people feel NO pity for the two hundred thousand or so hibakusha. What would we say if the only German memorial to WW2 dead was a lovingly preserved stretch of burnt out Dresden, or if they denied that the death camps ever existed?

I have no doubt that many of the people, Japanese and Korean, who died in the atomic bombings were innocent of any direct wrongdoing; but what I object to in Japan's endless display of its own suffering is this strange idea that its people are somehow uniquely ennobled because only they, of all mankind, suffered an atomic bombing; as if being bayoneted to death in Nanking or starved to death in Hanoi is less deserving of pity. The Japanese weren't the only one's who died in WW2, how about they teach their children about the 30 million Asians they killed.

Karma's a bi**h ain't it?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/16/2010 8:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sure is, a major bitch especially when you're a kid and have done nothing to deserve it? Karma's another superstition.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/18/2010 2:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Voted down to zero for that post. So there you have it: loads of blame for the couple thousand innocent Japanese kids killed in the atomic bombings. But nothing for the millions (out of a total victim count of 30 million) of innocent children killed in neighboring countries by the Japanese Imperial Army.

You people should visit the Hiroshima Memorial to Suffering Japan, you'd never know from the exhibit that Japan had ever sent soldiers to invade its neighbors.

I repeat:

I have no doubt that many of the people, Japanese and Korean, who died in the atomic bombings were innocent of any direct wrongdoing; but what I object to in Japan's endless display of its own suffering is this strange idea that its people are somehow uniquely ennobled because only they, of all mankind, suffered an atomic bombing; as if being bayoneted to death in Nanking or starved to death in Hanoi is less deserving of pity. The Japanese weren't the only one's who died in WW2, how about they teach their children about the 30 million Asians they killed.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/18/2010 5:56:33 PM , Rating: 1
Oh if you were looking for or expecting "fair & balanced" then you certainly chose to converse with the wrong people.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/20/2010 1:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
> Would not a similar display of military might, say dropping one of those in the harbor off Tokyo done just as much to scare them into giving up??

No, it would not have. The Japanese people believed their emperor was a living god. Part of the formal surrender terms were that he personally renounce this view. The Japanese people had an interminable will that needed to be broken. Had those bombs not been dropped, the casualty count would be at least as high as it was, but the share of American lives would be much higher. Many of us typing on these computers would not exist, as our fathers and grandfathers would have given their lives in the invasion of Tokyo Bay.

You speak from a standpoint of modern perspective on this issue, without any context or understanding of the tactical considerations of 1945.


By snakeInTheGrass on 9/15/2010 6:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Fog of War is a wonderful film to watch as McNamara goes over the list of Japanese cities fire-bombed / nuked and the U.S. equivalents. He doesn't seem as enthusiastic as you, but hey, he was involved in it. (His main point being proportionality...)

And as another reply points out, there probably aren't a whole lot of Chinese/Korean/Filipino/etc. folks who were mistreated by the Japanese who would shed too many tears, but whether the U.S. was justified in burning civilians - when you think about what that would have meant to OUR country had it been US cities... not so black and white. Really appalling, actually.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By priusone on 9/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: I just wanted to say....
By majBUZZ on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By DougF on 9/14/2010 5:19:03 PM , Rating: 1
Would it be Canada invaded the U.S. because the U.S. conducted a decades-long campaign of terror against Canadian citizens and their military personnel, and then hijacked 4 airliners and bombed the crap out of Toronto and killed several thousand people while destroying the city's landmark buildings? Maybe?

So, when do we go to war? Never? Or, should we only go to war if we're absolutely postive nobody gets hurt? War is a nasty, dirty business where people die and stuff is destroyed. Yeah, civilians die in war, every war, no matter what, and it sucks to be a civilian in a warzone. There is no "good" answer, it just sucks.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/14/2010 5:20:20 PM , Rating: 3
um - dial it back one more. Military does not win hearts & minds.

MTV, McDonald's, & Kim Kardashian wins hearts & minds.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By priusone on 9/14/2010 10:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
The military doesn't win hearts or minds?

How may soccer balls have you pumped up in 100+ degree heat only to go out later on and pass them out?

How many times have you had to duck for cover and find out how to return fire because of your ROE (Rules of Engagement)?

How many times have you knocked on doors and asked how everything was going, the whole while hoping the person that answers doesn't have an AK waiting for you?

The military does not win hearts & minds? I hope to God you mean it isn't the military's job to win hearts and minds. But, from where we stand today the military sure are trying hard to win them.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/20/2010 1:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's a fair point - but giving out soccer balls isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a G.I. or a Marine.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By knutjb on 9/15/2010 12:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now i hate al qaeda and the fing Taliban but we have killed to many civilians because we don't value their lives. And in a campaign of wining the hearts and minds it seems counter productive.
Um...you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Previously in war countries conquered and then enslaved those conquered. If we did that Germany and Japan would be states.

In Iraq we sent medical personnel into the outlying regions for health care. We brought many people to the US for treatment and gave general treatment to others. Then we started to receive huge amounts of intel on the bad guys. So it DOES work.

We do value civilian lives; we have developed weaponry and tactics to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Because of that the bad guys use them as human shields which is a major war crime.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Samus on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 1:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
When you stop going on about the evils of war, consider the following:

Millions of innocents died on WW 2 via carpet bombing on civilian cities--this hasn't occured since then. Before you start harping on Iraqi civilian deaths, consider that the majority of them have been caused by suicide bombing terrorists, not collateral damage from military strikes.

We have no control over the terrorists. Iraq was a stupid war but what is done is done and now, thanks to our inept leader, we're now throwing them all to the wolves.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:13:11 PM , Rating: 4
Here's another question?

Should we be deterred by more terrorists being created because they choose to blow up their own people in addition to our own?

Answer: No.

We should still seek out and destroy those who want to kill us. The fact that they kill their own to try and force them into bombing us is an unfortunate, but brutal example of just how crazy these terrorists are and the extremes they will go to. They are yet another example of why we need to hunt them down.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
Nuke them from orbit, if you want to do it right. :P

Screw the oil and minerals, we don't want to steal those anyways (at least, any sound, reasonable American). Fair trade rules the game here.

No, we should settle it once and for all and just build a wall around the whole sandbox and let them play all day in it by themselves. If they don't want to play nice with the rest of us, they don't have to.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By frobizzle on 9/16/2010 9:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuke them from orbit, if you want to do it right

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure

Corrected it for you. :-)


RE: I just wanted to say....
By mudgiestylie on 9/14/2010 3:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
actually that sounds pretty reasonable... the oil and minerals will be safe, they are buried pretty deep underground. the only problem would be backlash from other nuclear states. maybe if we agreed to split the resources with the russians and chinese. It seems like a gross oversimplification of things... but often times when you step back from these kinds of issues, simple is a lot better than trying to tackle all of the minutia. Wiping out millions of people... sounds pretty bad, except the vast majority of those people hate us and want to do us harm. Id call those people enemies. So we would be wiping out millions of the enemy. Works for me. Of course george soros and the leftist press (who've made it impossible for the government to do anything pragmatic) will never allow it.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By raumkrieger on 9/14/2010 3:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
Occam's razor: The simplest solution is often the best one.

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII. Extreme yes, but it saved a hell of a lot of lives on both ends.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 9:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Didn't save any lives, but incinerated a lot of women and kids.
Actually it did because the planned invasion of Japan was expected to have casualties around 500,000 to 4 million Allied and 5 to 10 million Japanese. That's a LOT of life saved. I suggest you read your history. Dropping nukes was not the original play and some of the military leaders STILL expected to have to invade Japan afterwards. No one expected the Japanese to surrender outright. That's not how they rolled.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
what is you're source for that. I believe the demand was unconditional surrender.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By psychmike on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 9:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apparently, a lot of them live in the U.S.
Nah, there's just an abnormal concentration of idiots here on DT.


By snakeInTheGrass on 9/15/2010 6:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Neutron bombs?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By knutjb on 9/15/2010 12:16:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Here's aneasier question. How many terrorists do you create every time an innocent civilian gets killed? One extended families worth? How many is that? How about everyone in that neighborhood? What if it was a simple equivalent of a priest, how many then?

Pick a number, any number. Use our own people as a guide for determining the magnitude. How many of them are now yelling YEEHAW in their language?
That is a false analogy. The terrorist say that if we just left Saudi Arabia they would stop. It is just propaganda and lies to muck up the discourse. Learn about the history and time lines. The wackos are crazy, not stupid. They watch public sentiment and tailor comments to fuel the fire.

What they really want is a world in their image, radical Islamic fundamentalism. The rest is just lies to sucker people like you. In fact modern islamic fundamentalist are destroying their own medieval period art as too racy. Look up what's going on in the ...stan countries. You need to learn a little more about their tactics.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By snakeInTheGrass on 9/15/2010 6:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the history of the region when the 'Great Game' was underfoot is nice - the total lies and double-crosses the various tribes pulled are just amazing. There's no reason to think that everything will be all dandy once we: release some random prisoners, stop supporting Israel, withdraw troops from place X, Y, or Z, stop supporting whatever governments, though it is possible that not propping up some of the governments would lower the outward focus of the radicals as they tried harder to topple them. Then again, Pakistan with even more whacko leadership and nukes doesn't sound that good either.

Of course, rather than putting $200 billion into alternate energy research (Mr. Fusion, anyone?), we spent a trillion $ bringing regime change to the one government there that actually WAS suppressing the terrorists, even if the leader was killing his own citizens. bin Laden doesn't appear to have been high on Saddam's list of people to support, and after what we did in Afghanistan I think most governments there were ready to distance themselves from those groups... but we blew most of the good will / fear factor with the Iraq invasion. :/ Should have finished in Afghanistan...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/15/2010 7:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
???

We ARE putting billions into alternative energy research. What are you smoking? How is defense spending and research spending mutually exclusive? The trillion dollar stimulus is mostly being used to fund energy research, when it's not going to paying off the lobbyists and campaign contributors for the Obama campaign.

Defense spending is the JOB of the Federal Government, in case you didn't get that. Spending billions to do something the private sector is supposed to do is not.

And I think there's something you and EVERYONE here has forgotten. Saddam was tried, found guilty, and executed via hanging by his own former people. So yeah, I think that should tell you something about how they felt about this "benevolent dictator" you guys are painting a picture of.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Millions of innocents died on WW 2 via carpet bombing on civilian cities--this hasn't occured since then. Before you start harping on Iraqi civilian deaths, consider that the majority of them have been caused by suicide bombing terrorists, not collateral damage from military strikes.


The difference though was that both Germany and Japan were raging Belligerents who wished to subjugate massive populations(Slavs, Chinese)for direct exploitation. As such the ends justified the means.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
And this is true--we had no other choice at the time but to use brutal bombing in retaliation to them. Just take a look at what they did to Great Britain when they tried to make them submit.

Times have changed though, thankfully, with the advent of GPS-guided JDAM's and JSOW's, GPS-guided cluster bombs (and bomblets too!), laser-guided bombs and more. Now we can nearly precisely aim at just the terrorists and to me, that is wonderful progress.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 2:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure this is progress. I honestly believe that these precision weapons and the concern for civilian casualties have made large scale wars largely unable to be won. In the aftermath of WWII the Japanese and German populations had been completely decimated. They had been so badly beaten that they no longer wanted to fight and accepted occupation and reconstruction willingly.

Compare this to the non-total wars which have occurred since. In many of these wars the military victory is achieved quickly thanks to our technological advantage only to have the civilian population rise up against us using guerrilla tactics afterwords. This leads to us having to appease the civilian population with concessions on the political front rather than forcing things upon them as we did Japan and Germany in WWII. At the end of the day one cannot declare a war won unless the civilian population as well as the military has acquiesced. In many cases, as politically incorrect (and illegal for that matter) as it may be, the only way to do this is to bomb them into oblivion as well as we did the Japanese and the Germans.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:48:54 PM , Rating: 3
Total submission sounds nice but even if you do force them to the complete breaking point, children remember far to well the suffering their parents witnessed.

Going by your logic, the only way to be thorough would be to get rid of all the women and children as well--and that well, that borders on Nazi death camp policy (or ancient Greek if you read back far enough). America has never been about complete extermination of a population and if you observe Japanese society closely, despite our bombing of them (which was the correct and only humane option we had at the point), many of them still to this day hate our country.

I'd like to think Americans are above complete extermination of innocents in war to force their utter submission. If we're going to take the lead in the world, we need to set a good example. There are times when we need to fight wars, as war is necessary by our nature, I don't think we should go to the extreme unless first provoked by an extreme that could do just that to us.

If we are, well, then we do have that option. In Vietnam, that would have been a poor choice given the number of people in South Vietnam who supported us and likewise in Iraq--many "true" innocents would die and for what? As of now, quite a bit of them are actually embracing their newfound freedom and ability to elect leaders.

If only they would really have a chance to survive long enough to evolve... I don't think Iran will allow that.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
It may be a very long time, but I honestly believe that if we last long enough without nuking ourselves, we may truly free ourselves from the primitive practice of war. Hopefully people will embrace humanism, and rationalism, and release ourselves from primitive urges such as war. We are all human, and we all live on the same planet.

Many things will have to change, no more nationalism, religion, racism, or any other typical "us vs them" mentalities.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/14/2010 3:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or any other typical "us vs them" mentalities.
I agree. You can lead by example. Join my side [since then it is just "us"] ... or else.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
some of us would call that wishful thinking. There is a limited amount of resources and power is a zero sum game. People will always want more resources and more power and this has to come at the expense of someone else's resources and power.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/14/2010 5:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wha-? Please consider US-Japan relations in the 20th century before you post.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh last time I checked the relations between the United States and Japan are quite good. There are occasional bumps with regards to incidents between our soldiers and the civilian populace, but largely things are smooth sailing. We have numerous troops still stationed there. The government of Japan has largely abided by a Constitution we approved and only in the past couple decades has begun to rearm, but even then only for self-defense purposes. They still largely rely on us for defense in a full scale war.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/20/2010 1:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's where I was going.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 9:16:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If we're going to take the lead in the world, we need to set a good example.
See, I have a problem with the US needing to lead the world. Why? Each country has their own leaders. Let them follow them. I think our first priority in foreign relations is to let the world go its own way. If someone needs help, then help. If someone becomes a "bully", then act against the "bully". Otherwise I think it's best to mind our own damn business.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:27:11 PM , Rating: 4
Ahh isn't helping those who need help and standing up to bullies a form of leadership??

I personally believe the U.S. should act like every other country on the face of the planet, in our own self interest. Sounds harsh, sounds immoral, but it is the reality of how the world works. Countries do not do something unless they figure that on the balance they have something to gain by taking said action. This is why Russia and China would prefer a nuclear Iran to placing sanctions on them. It puts China and Russia in a position of power to stick it to the U.S. and allows them to continue selling resources to Iran. In other words it is not in their self-interest to place sanctions on Iran and until that changes they won't do it.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/2010 9:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
"Otherwise I think it's best to mind our own damn business."

Then what would we do with Trillion dollar Military?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/20/2010 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Or the Trillion Dollar Deficits?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Mojo the Monkey on 9/14/2010 5:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong on your facts. You need to do some reading into the civilian insurgency in Germany after WW2. Kind of puts a dent into your submission theory. It was a BIG problem.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:21:47 PM , Rating: 3
There was no widespread insurgency in Germany following WWII. There were some minor incidents in the immediate aftermath of the surrender, but those were few and far between. Nothing even remotely approaching the insurgencies we have seen in wars since.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:53:24 PM , Rating: 3
Retaliation may have been part of it, but the actual reason we carpet bombed our enemies' cities was to destroy their industrial capacity to make war.

As for the part about Great Britain, the mayhem caused by German bombers on the UK is insignificant compared to the destruction rained down by allied planes over Germany, though the scale and seriousness of the war dictated that such bombing was necessary unfortunately.

The root cause that led up to the entire war in Europe was really because of the tension between two very wicked men Hitler and Stalin, most of what else happened as a result of that ie Germany attacked France to avoid a two front war like WWI once war opened up between Germany and the Soviets. It really saddens me to my core that so many millions on both sides had to die over perverted ideologies.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/2010 8:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
Why did we Fire bomb Dresden? To destroy their military cup and plate making capacity?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 9:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
Nope. To demoralize the populace.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/2010 9:53:30 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly! The word they actually used was to instill TERROR! to TERRORIZE the populace!


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Nightraptor on 9/14/2010 11:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's fine. At least I think it should be. As I said in a earlier post in my opinion the Geneva Conventions only serve to make wars more prolonged and frequent. There is no absolute victory so the war is prolonged or there is no resolution of the issues over which the war started. War is also sanitized (compared to the horrors of WWI and WWII) such that it is a easier step to take. Robert E. Lee once said that it is a good thing that war is terrible because otherwise men would grow to fond of it which incidentally is exactly what the Geneva Conventions try to do - make it less terrible.

Now if you are referring to the acts of Al Qaeda and the like there is ultimately only two differences. 1) Sovereign Nation vs. transnational network of like minded individuals. 2) declared war vs. surprise attack.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/15/2010 8:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TERROR! to TERRORIZE the populace!

You don't need bombs for that, just the board of directors at Goldman Sachs.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By timmiser on 9/14/2010 8:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
Well I love the historical significance of the Battle of Britain. It was actually British bombers that started the bombing of 'innocent' civilians but it all happened by accident. British bombers on a mission to bomb strategic targets in Berlin missed their targets due to cloud cover and accidently bombed some civilian areas. This pissed off Hitler, who prior to this had London as 'off limits' to German bombing and in response to that attack, is when he started bombing London. And of course if you are familiar with that history, that diversion is what saved Britain's RAF from total defeat!


RE: I just wanted to say....
By topkill on 9/14/2010 2:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Who is throwing them to the wolves? And in what way?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By MrBlastman on 9/14/2010 2:35:31 PM , Rating: 4
Well, lets see for a moment...

We invaded Iraq and dethroned Saddam (who is now dead) and his murderous cronies--the only people, might I add, who were able to stabilize _all_ of the Muslim factions and keep them under leash for many years. I'm not saying he was right for doing it, as thousands of innocents died--but, they were kept under check and prevented from getting out of control.

So we dethroned Saddam, freeing up all the crazy sects to go nuts, sending suicide bombers everywhere murdering thousands of Iraqi citizens. We then ended up occupying the country for years due to us realizing the mistake we made--and the people's inability to defend themselves due to us basically destroying their army and their police force falling apart.

So, our presence was the new semi(not really) stabilizing force in the country. 2008 comes along and we elect a complete imbecile who we now know is worse than Jimmy Carter (that is hard to do) and he decides we need to leave Iraq. We're now doing this, leaving Iraqi citizens with a half-wit police force and army to try and defend them from the terrorists.

So, yes, we've thrown them to the wolves. This old saying still is true to this day:

"You break it, you buy it."


RE: I just wanted to say....
By clovell on 9/14/2010 5:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, Saddam only maintained stability in the region by pretending he had nuclear weapons.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 5
Most of the major tension in the modern world is over religious matters, its undeniable. I'll probably be rated down but I think the only way we can ever overcome this primitive stage of our evolution would be to throw of the shackles of ancient dogma and mythology.

Please don't mention Stalin either, he may have been atheist but that is not why he had no respect for human life, simply put the man was crazy.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/15/2010 12:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of the major tension in the modern world is over religious matters
Debatable. But even if you're right, welcome to the party.

Btw, while you've been doing your history homework, there's a mosque being built where it ought not be. Called Cordoba. Because that's a sign of (muslim) victory. Crazy, huh.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By phil38 on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/15/2010 3:31:09 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ah yes, Bush's fault. That makes only the 12375482344th time this week (I've heard this inept excuse).


Well considering that the war was Bush's creation, and that he owned it for the first 5 years of it's 7-year life-span - yah, I think it's Bush's fault.

Obama is in exactly the same position that Nixon found himself in 1969 when he inherited the disastrous Vietnam War from the Democrats. Or are you of the opinion that the Vietnam War was Nixon's fault?

Both Obama and Nixon found themselves burdened with a war they didn't start and they didn't want with no satisfactory solution in sight. Ultimately Obama had no choice but to do exactly what Nixon did: call an end to it and get out with as much dignity as possible.

Obama wasn't yet in the Senate when Congress voted to authorize the use of force in the fall of 2002. But he spoke out against it as a Senate candidate that year.

"Month after month, and then year after year," Sen. Obama said today, "I've watched with a heavy heart as my deepest suspicions about this war’s conception have been confirmed and exacerbated in its disastrous implementation."


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/15/2010 12:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is in exactly the same position that Nixon found himself in 1969 when he inherited the disastrous Vietnam War from the Democrats.
I disagree. There was a lesson learned from the Vietnam war: don't let politicians micromanage the war effort; let the Generals do their job.

Obama, when asked through channels for more troops, still took how many months to respond? And did Obama have to publicly denigrate that military leader? Somebody who worked hard to earn the position of general. And who saddled a State Dept. insider/mole with the Afghanistan leadership?

Obama even claims the Afghanistan war as his. Yet, he is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. How can this be? Are the goat-herders too much for him? Maybe if he bowed before them...?

No, I suspect the jury is no longer out concerning who is inept. Even pushing to undermine our volunteer army's morale by repealing DADT. They can't even repeal DADT out in the open; Obamareadolosi have to hide it in an appropriation bill. Pathetic.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By knutjb on 9/15/2010 12:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, the SAME Obama who as a Senator who thought the war was lost and the surge into Iraq was foolish with commensurate votes to back up his words. Not picking on Obama just adding both of HIS sides into the picture.

Blaming [Bush] is easy to do when you don't look at all the info and the same goes for Obama too.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/15/2010 3:09:10 PM , Rating: 4
To knutjob and ekv

You both really miss the point here: it was a stupid, wasteful, unnecessary war. It was sold to us on a lie, cost vast sums of money, killed hundreds of thousands of people, reduced Iraq to ruins, strengthened Iran and Al-Qaeda, and brought us precious little. Congratulating Bush for the success of the Surge is like awarding a medal to a pyromaniac for finally putting out the fire that he sarted in the first place. No fire, no frantic beating at the flames; no war, no surge.

5 years of failure later, Bush retires to his farm in Texas, and it becomes Obama's problem. To blame Obama - one of the few guys intelligent enough to recognize the stupidity of the whole thing right from the get go - is precisely like blaming Nixon for the mess that Johnson started in Vietnam.

OK, got it? Now back to your Fox KoolAid and forget you ever read this post.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/16/2010 4:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The war is going on over there. Suicide bombers and all.


You really do seem to have a problem distinguishing cause and effect. Suicide bombings are a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan precisely because we're there fighting these wars.

And since when is not going to war "appeasement"? So are we now appeasing any of a dozen existing mal-governed states?

You people on the right are a very confusing lot. On one hand, you go on about how we should concentrate on our own problems at home and not traipse about the world squandering our resources in "nation-building" - as Bush himself claimed in the Presidential debates - on the other, you bend over backward defending just such military adventures even when they prove to have been hugely-expensive failures.

In any case, we both know what's going on here: you're defending Bush's wars because he's a Republican; if it had been Obama who started these wars, you and Fox would be screaming for his head.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/16/2010 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
hey, mr. world traveler, ever been to Israel? Egypt? Indonesia? Bali? Mumbai? Suicide bombers aren't simply relegated to Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you even have the remotest clue as to who the terrorists are? o wait, I can't use that word "terrorists", sorry.

When does appeasement cross the line becoming cowardice?

I don't know about you, but I'm not appeasing anyone. If I am, it's wrong and I hope to hear about it sooner rather than later.

"You people on the right are a very confusing lot." Right. Very well, old chap. Pip, pip. Here we go, Pansy Pecker-face. Perhaps I came late to the party and perhaps I'm just itching for a fight, but if you think about it, it'll only take one second, I haven't defended any of those positions you've stated.

It may be comfortable putting me in my place, but instead of being bored to death by your fishing-expedition posts, let me save some time and just tell you who I am. A conservative God-fearing man. Now we know "what's going on."


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/17/2010 1:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am... A conservative God-fearing man.


In other words, your world-view is dictated by dogma impervious to rational criticism, and nothing anyone can say or do will ever shake your conviction that you are right.

And I have been to Bali, Indonesia, and Israel - does that somehow make my opinion less authoritative than someone who has never been more than 40 miles from his home town?

But again your appalling ignorance is proudly on display. The problems in Israel and Egypt are the result of very specific local disputes: Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, and the Egyptian government's squashing of the democratic aspirations of it's people. The Pakistan-India never-ending wars are the outcome of a botched partition of the Indian subcontinent by the Brits in the final mths of their empire. Read Paul Scott's brilliant 'The Raj Quartet' for a wonderful novelistic treatment of that era and it's problems.

You're one of these guys who hates detail and prefers to cling to simple-minded, black-white generalizations that reduce the complexity of the world down to slogans like "it's either us or the terrorists".

Anyway, wtf does any of this have to do with what this sub-thread is about, which is why should Bush not be given blame for his two failed wars - wars that have done nothing but radicalize huge numbers of people and instigate those very suicide bombings you rant about. You seem oblivious of the fact that in his fight against terrorists - let's ignore for a second that there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion - Bush has increased terrorism in the world.

ekv, I've got to say from these few encounters, that you're one of those people whose absolute certainty about all things is the result of knowing so little that your fundamentalist convictions are never in danger of being threatened by facts.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/17/2010 1:36:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But again your appalling ignorance is proudly on display.

Ignorance is bliss, why let go?

quote:
You're one of these guys who hates detail and prefers to cling to simple-minded, black-white generalizations that reduce the complexity of the world down to slogans like "it's either us or the terrorists".


The better one is "God is on our side," as opposed to us being on God's side. But hey, no arrogance here.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/17/2010 5:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The better one is "God is on our side," as opposed to us being on God's side.
YashBudini troll at large.

Six Months in the White House with Abraham Lincoln , written by Francis B. Carpenter and published in 1867, not long after Lincoln's death.

The following is from Page 282 of Carpenter's account:

"No nobler reply ever fell from the lips of a ruler, than that uttered by President Lincoln in response to the clergyman who ventured to say, in his presence, that he hoped 'the Lord was on our side.'

"'I am not at all concerned about that,' replied Mr. Lincoln, 'for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side.'"


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/18/2010 5:49:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
YashBudini troll at large.

Is that the best you can do? Yawn.

quote:
"'I am not at all concerned about that,' replied Mr. Lincoln, 'for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side.'"

As I said W got it wrong. What's your point?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/19/2010 1:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that the best you can do?
I was trying to be kind. It was a gracious statement, yes, gracious. [Consider some of the other things you've been called ... maybe that is the unintended consequences of your actions?]

So I take it you do not want the-benefit-of-the-doubt? Have it your way....


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/17/2010 5:00:03 AM , Rating: 1
So you're backing away from "you're defending Bush's wars because he's a Republican..." ?

Come, come, you missed getting a few more shots at Fox news. Are you slipping? You say you see, but you don't because you're still fishing for how much I've traveled.

Here you are world traveler, Pansy Pecker-face, wanna-be aristocrat, you've been to the hot spots, but you still haven't learned a damn thing.
quote:
Israeli oppression of the Palestinians
meh, doggerel. If that were true wouldn't Jordan or Syria take the Palestinians? because they are so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and they are such humanitarians. Not. Despite there being a UN resolution, Jordan and Syria will not take in Palestinians. They want the Palestinians to remain where they are, as a thorn to Israel, as soldiers on the front line who can be lied to and given Iranian oil money in exchange for suicide bombers. Ancient Jewish maxim, the interest is more important than the principle. You know in your heart I'm right.

Pointing to Pakistan-India border tensions kind of ignores the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the Mumbai attacks, they being one of the largest and most active Islamist militant terrorist organizations in South Asia. [Does a pattern begin to emerge?]

It would seem I'm not the one with appalling ignorance "proudly on display." But that does raise a question, how can you have an enemy if you can't name them? You can't call them "terrorists." You'd have to spin it somehow that they are really Republicans in disguise. Because the Republicans can be named [why I don't know, but they can]. No, that won't work. Would it? Maybe just ignore them, somehow they'll stop being agitated ... and go away.
quote:
"Bush has increased terrorism in the world."
This is just laughable, but you're actually dead serious. You really are a nut job. So much so that you've lost sight of why you're here. Maybe, looking for a challenge? no, that can't be because your condescending tone is the epitome of Liberal superiority. Think for a second, again ... ah, found it. [Touch pads are worthless for scrolling].

" We have no control over the terrorists. "

Your whole spiel boils down to I'm smarter than you and wars have unintended consequences. I'm becoming less convinced of the former, and the latter ... even your personal "war" against Bush has its consequences.

What of the money spent in Iraq? You're willing to throw it all away because you blame Bush. You're willing to dishonor all the servicemen who put their all on the line. You are a despicable cretin. What happens when we go to war next time? the unintended consequence is that the Army remembers how they got stabbed in the back by (Liberal) politicians and next time they don't bother, or something to that effect. Of course, according to Liberals, there won't be a next time so let's get rid of the Armed forces. 'Well, at least scale them down so that the US is in parity with Europe. Hmm, maybe parity with Egypt is more politically correct. Or maybe just less than N. Korea. That's so they'll know they have nothing to fear from US.' Like anybody in the world is afraid US now?! Iran is just shaking in their boots, no?

Are you going to measure your words VERY carefully? or are you going to continue shooting-from-the-hip, with your personal vendetta against Bush, willing to bear the full and utter burden of unintended consequences?

Go ahead. Make my day.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/17/2010 8:09:26 AM , Rating: 2
As an indication of the value of that post, let's take this:

quote:
If that were true wouldn't Jordan or Syria take the Palestinians?


A majority of the Jordanian population is already Palestinian. In fact, about as many Palestinians live in Jordan as in the West Bank and Gaza combined.

But what you really mean is why won't Syria and Jordan sacrifice their own well-being to make it possible for Israel to drive the Palestinian people off their land in the Occupied Territories so that Israel can once again be restored to it's biblical glory. Would you also exile Israel's Arab citizens?

Don't tell me that in addition to knowing nothing about the political situation in the rest of the world, you're also a Christian Fundamentalist? Are you one of those Christian Crazies who think the Palestinians must be driven off the their land to prepare the way for Jesus to come back and carry your sorry nutsack off to heaven? Sigh.

This is my last reply to you ekv. You're a waste of time. Criticizing you is beginning to feel like child abuse.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/17/2010 1:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Value? You want value?
quote:
A majority of the Jordanian population is already Palestinian. In fact, about as many Palestinians live in Jordan as in the West Bank and Gaza combined.
I could look up the figures on the Intarwebz, but the numbers aren't terribly reliable. Simple observation: this is often the case where muslims are concerned.

If Jordan is such a home, if the oppression is so great, then why don't all the Palestinians move to Jordan? For respite if nothing else. No, to you that's illogical since hidden in there is losing the land. Instead you hark back to the tried and true, it is Israel's fault. It's always somebodys fault with you. Lawyer?

It's called the Occupied Territories for a reason. As you well know. If you want to play the game, you places yer bet and takes yer chances. Some people like to play Texas Hold 'em, others (like me) prefer to place my bet in the stock market(s). The latter is more of an investment. Real estate is always solid, even if there were a threat of invasion on the horizon. But, I digress.

The Palestinians played, they lost. I suppose that makes Israel an oppressor, for winning. Next you'll be talking about how Ahmedinejad is "one of the few guys intelligent enough to recognize the stupidity of the whole thing". Never mind his nuclear weapon aspirations and the part about wiping Israel off the map.

I just thought of something. According to you, the US is supposed to walk away, but the Palestinians are to stay and fight. You are inconsistent. You could say, it is the Palestinians land and the Israeli's are occupiers, but that gets into a sticky wicket, Balfour declaration and UN resolutions notwithstanding. Perhaps if you just keep spinning out the it's-Israels-fault kool-aid?
quote:
You're a waste of time.
Let's translate your Liberal-speak. What you really mean is, the weekend is coming up and you've a few, um, things to chase. Typical do-gooder Liberal. Save the world from ourselves. Leave the solution codified in mind-numbing gov't bureaucracy, and then on to your next cause. Reminds me of a song. How does it go? "Won't get fooled again!", Who.

What's the definition of spiel? In other words, I've felt this way for some time. I'm sure your employer is sold on you for it though. All I have to say is, it's a good thing God doesn't think that way.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By RaggedClaws on 9/18/2010 4:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, I suspect the jury is no longer out concerning who is inept.


I really can't work up much enthusiasm for either of these pols, but to claim that Bush doesn't bear the lion's-share of responsibility for your wars of the moment is very odd. Tony Blair, aka phony Tony or Bliar, is loathed in the UK. Few would lay the rotting corpse of Iraq of Afghanistan at the feet of Brown or Cameron.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/18/2010 5:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Let me rephrase your wording slightly
quote:
I really can't work up much enthusiasm for either of these pols, but to claim that Obama doesn't bear any responsibility for your wars of the moment is very odd.
That was my exclusive point. I disagree with Bush on many things, agree on others, but the incessant caterwauling of "it's Bush's fault" is simply balderdash. It is not gentleman-like, it is spineless and unmanly.

Question: If Iraq and Afghanistan comprise a "rotting corpse", as you say 8) then perhaps the allied forces ought to carpet-bomb the whole thing, no?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/18/2010 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ta da!, Bush is no longer president and another time-line can be established.

Oh like Clinton's escapades aren't still bring talked about?

Looks like you can dish it out, but you can't take it.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By ekv on 9/19/2010 2:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I just wanted to say....
By zippyzoo on 9/14/2010 5:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
And who are they exactly? /F


RE: I just wanted to say....
By AstroGuardian on 9/14/2010 6:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
How about those bombs falling at your house? How is that feeling comparing?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By bug77 on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By AssBall on 9/14/2010 11:36:04 AM , Rating: 5
Nope. I looked at it naked, and it was definitely still awesome.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2010 12:09:09 PM , Rating: 4
Well upside down it looks like the bombs are falling into it which wouldn't be that cool.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By acer905 on 9/14/2010 12:34:51 PM , Rating: 5
Nah, even if you look at it upside down, the bay doors are open. It's just the new "fast-reload" feature. You just don't see the super bomb freight blimp that is sending them to the B2


RE: I just wanted to say....
By BZDTemp on 9/14/2010 12:40:34 PM , Rating: 5
It depends. If it's a fast way of filling the B-2 with bombs for another trip then it would be great.

Now enough with the stupidity. Why would they want a plane that could be maned and flown remotely!

It would save truckloads of money making it just a remote control one and we all know that is what makes sense (and how else will Skynet ever be able to take control).


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and how else will Skynet ever be able to take control
Indeed.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
The HKs are proving themselves quite worthy. How soon before they are flying above our skies?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Political IQ test . What is the connection between these 2 facts?:
Political IQ test .

What is the connection between these 2 facts?:

1) 46.5% of total global military expenditure takes place in the US - that means we spend more than the next 40 countries on the list combined.

2) In the past 50 years, the US has fought 3 totally unnecessary and pointless wars which, in spite of the trillions spent and millions of lives lost, availed us absolutely nothing.

You have 2 mins to submit your answers.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 1
Well you do understand that the public sector could never possibly have a conflict of interest in such matters. They could never have seen a war coming after 9-11, loaded up on miltary stocks, and then voted for the war. That would never happen.

And how dare you question the motivation.


By Mojo the Monkey on 9/14/2010 5:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
I question the motivation. 9-11 lead to Iraq, and I question the logic there. And, even though its "more popular" - i really question invading Afghanistan just to go after something a small group did. I've said it before, you better home some backwater ultra-kook christian group doesnt bomb some place in China... because that would give then the moral majority to invade the US and "impose a government less hospitable to these radicals" - etc.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Solandri on 9/14/2010 2:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't repost the same thing when your first post below already has lots of replies. It just clutters up and confuses the discussion. Unless of course that's your intent.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Hammer1024 on 9/14/2010 1:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
"It would save truckloads of money making it just a remote control one..."

Err. Actually no. Remotely pilot vehicles cost a lot more than a piloted vehicle. You have the command and control infrastructure needed to do real-time and way-point missions which one doesn't need for manned missions (High bandwidth satellites, ground stations, etc.). One still has the pilot training costs, fleet maintenance costs, basing costs, etc. Most of the later are a wash though.

And contrary to what the article says about using proven technology... Well, that's just BS.

Finding electrical components to make copies of those existing systems? Really? Heck I've got problems finding parts less than a year later, let alone 20 years later... Please. There is one reason and one reason only to use drones like the U.S. uses them; not for massed attach, not for long loiter, but to take humans out of harms way.

Later,

Hammer1024


RE: I just wanted to say....
By flatrock on 9/14/2010 5:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
You need most of the infrastructure anyway. Our planes already need to communicate large amounts of data between each other and other resources.

While it would be more pronounced in a figher than a bomber you save a lot of weight and space without the pilot and everything needed to maintain a reasonable operating environment for a pilot. Military electronics often get specced to handle -40 to +85 degrees C. Humans can't operate over those temperature ranges. They also are more limited in the number of Gs the can withstand without blacking out. You also don't need ejector seats.

The control systems are on the ground. That means that weight, space and heat produced are less of an issue. That significantly reduces costs of components and development.

Training and maintenance costs go way down. Why? Because the difference between flying a simulator and flying the real thing shrinks to near insignificance. That means far less hours in the air for the planes which means far less fuel and maintence. You still need to fly the drones, and you still need to keep your maintence staff trained, but training pilots becomes far less expensive.

The pool of people capable of becomming pilots also becomes considerably larger because the physical requirements are much lower.

However, you also don't put the huge investment you have in a pilot at risk during training or generally during combat either. You also can have the advantages of better rested pilots because on long missions because the crew can be replaced mid-mission.

quote:
And contrary to what the article says about using proven technology... Well, that's just BS.


Using proven technology isn't the same as using existing consumer parts. Generally electronics have to meet much stricter environmental requirements so while you leverage proven technoloy and build on it, it usually isn't a matter of buying off the shelf consumer products. If you are worried about a product going obsolete you put in a big last time buy for a lot of them. You have to balance the cost of purchasing them up front and keeping the inventory against having to redesign things around a new part. Commercial companies have to do the same thing if something they need might not be produced in the future.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 11:38:00 AM , Rating: 2
Political IQ test .

What is the connection between these 2 facts?:

1) 46.5% of total global military expenditure takes place in the US - that means we spend more than the next 40 countries on the list combined.

2) In the past 50 years, the US has fought 3 totally unnecessary and pointless wars which, in spite of the trillions spent and millions of lives lost, availed us absolutely nothing?

You have 2 mins to submit your answers.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 11:48:09 AM , Rating: 1
Is one of those wars your referring to the Korean war? I would argue that war worked out for us and them quite well in the long run, though Vietnam was a mess. As for Iraq, it seems to be looking up, though with more foresight that war could have been avoided, Afghanistan was a complete mistake imo.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Is one of those wars your referring to the Korean war?


No, I am referring to Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq may be looking up (tho even that is debatable) but what on earth did we get for our trillion dollars and 4400 dead? And that's not even considering the hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis, and the 15% of Iraqis driven from their homes. The infrastructure is now in worse shape than before the war.

You can argue that Saddam Hussein was a butcher; but he wasn't our responsibility. All those dead and all the damage from the last 9 years are.

The only real winner of the war was Iran.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 5
I couldn't agree more with you here! I say this as someone who has served two tours in Iraq, Bush and the congressional leaders of the time failed to use the hindsight gained by the Vietnam war, and now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 1:02:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Iraq may be looking up (tho even that is debatable) but what on earth did we get for our trillion dollars and 4400 dead?


An ally in the center of the Middle East?

Historically speaking, you're making an amazing bargain sound like a tragedy.

quote:
The infrastructure is now in worse shape than before the war.


Yes because it's important to have good "infrastructure" when you live in a place where you have no civil rights. Where you are dragged from your home and thrown into a wood chipper while your family is made to watch. Where whole villages are gassed and wiped out for no reason. Where tens of thousands are thrown in mass graves and buried.

quote:
You can argue that Saddam Hussein was a butcher; but he wasn't our responsibility.


Nice apathy. If not ours, than who's?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes because it's important to have good "infrastructure" when you live in a place where you have no civil rights.

Tell that to the countless civilians killed by religious fanatics that had previously been suppressed by Saddam, who were greatly empowered by the presence of a massive foreign military presence, we all agree Saddam was a bad guy, but the destruction wrought by him on his people is paltry compared to the mass anarchy that broke out after the initial invasion.

As for the Ally bit, was it worth ~100k Iraqi civilians, 4400 US servicemen and a trillion dollars? And its not like we got a strong ally either, just another liability...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't cost a factor? I'm not referring only to money.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? When did I mention the environment? In any case I take the stance that the government should not be trying to 'stop' global warming. The evidence seems to suggest that CO2 is not a major contributor to global climate.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well you have to understand his mindset, which is really no different than the mindset of the other side. The opponent is an inferior being. Our civilians count, and there's don't.

I hope you don't expect peace with such an equation. As long as the terrorists on both sides keep screaming (as you see here) nothing is going to change.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Really makes me wish John Lennon were still alive. :'(


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
He may have shot himself after viewing today's society.



RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 2:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He may have shot himself after viewing today's society
Like it was any better back then? I'll take the present, thank you, when I wouldn't have to worry about getting lynched for walking down the street with my wife. You are MORE than welcome to go back to that old bullsh!t.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
We may have problems today, but I am a glass half full kind of guy, and I agree the world today is a much better place than it was just 30-40 years ago, no doubt about that.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 5:04:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll take the present, thank you, when I wouldn't have to worry about getting lynched for walking down the street with my wife.


Isn't that FIT and Recycler over there by the tree with a rope?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 3:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really makes me wish John Lennon were still alive. :'(


Really? The man who sang about peace and then went home and beat his wife, kicked his family pets, and one time yelled so loudly into his sons ear he permanently damaged his hearing?

Time to pick better role models buddy. Lennon was a hypocrite and a horrible horrible man.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 3:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah also a womanizer who cheated multiple times on multiple wives.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By lagomorpha on 9/14/2010 5:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's perfect :D


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/15/2010 8:21:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a womanizer who cheated multiple times on multiple wives.

Anyone having flashbacks of Newt Gingrich?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 10:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
kicked his family pets
Now see, that's just going too far.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/15/2010 8:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
that's just going too far.

You expected anything less?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Iaiken on 9/14/2010 1:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just another liability...


Indeed. The biggest fear of military analysts around the world is that when the US leaves, Iraq will turn into a Shiite Theocracy.

The ONLY thing standing in the way of that in the past was the brutal oppression of Saddam. Al Qaeda and Iran all support the formation of a Shiite theocracy in Iraq and have been working towards that end since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Nothing would be a greater victory for the Iranians than to turn America's pet project into Iran Jr. When the US leaves, the conditions will be just right for a Shia revolt and overthrow of what they see to be an American-puppet government.

We'll just have to wait and see...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2010 2:00:49 PM , Rating: 1
I definitely agree on this point. The people in Iraq will have to decide whether they're willing to fight for the freedom we gave them or not. If they don't, then yes, the country will descend back into anarchy.

Honestly, my opinion on Iraq is, we're giving you a chance, do with it as you will. If they're not willing to fight for freedom, they don't deserve it. We can't do it forever for them.

But the fact is that we'll have troops there for a while. So it'll be 10-20 years probably before that's a possibility.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
You have to understand though freedom means very different things to them than it does to us. The influence of Islam is waaay more than say Christianity in the west, people there think of themselves as Shiite, Sunni, etc first... before thinking of themselves as Iraqis.

As such both sides fought violently for control in the new government, it sounds odd to say, but the nation was not ready for democracy, dividing the country up could be an option, but alas dividing a nation on religious lines doesn't work either(see India Pakistan).


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2010 2:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
Again, that is their issue to work out. I understand that Islamic culture does not deal to our way of life very well. I agree that things should have been handled differently in Iraq. What I do not agree with though is that we should have just left Saddam in power.

Personally I would have shot or blown up the bastard and then left the rest to them. If the next guy proves to be as troublesome, well then he ends up in a box(or a jar) too. Dictatorships don't have to be evil.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 3:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, that is their issue to work out.
I agree. But I don't think we should be involved there in the first place. Not our problem, IMO. If they asked for help, then by all means do so but otherwise stay the f$%k out. But I have a radical opinion on foreign policy. I think we should only trade with other countries. No UN membership, no NATO BS. Tourists and foreign workers are ok. Close ties with countries like Canada are ok. No ties with third world countries period unless they specifically request aid for disasters from our gonvernment(still talking about foreign policy...citizens can do whatever). Everyone should defend themselves unless you have some super wacko like Hitler steamrolling over everyone. It would only behoove us to get involved at that point.

Sounds self-centered, huh? Yep, but we wouldn't be sitting here arguing right now if this was our foreign policy. IMO, no involvement is coming. We're tired of Iraq and Afghanistan. And tired of getting sh!t on for what we do. Don't be surprised when it happens.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By flatrock on 9/14/2010 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Radical Islam made it quite clear that they weren't just going to leave us alone. They are fighting a holy war against us wether we want to fight it or not.

What we have done is to force them to concentrate their efforts in the Middle East, not in attacking soft, civilian targets in the US.

However, there is no easy solution over there. We overestimated their ability to govern themselves, or more likely since Bush was president he let hope overwhelm reason. I had hope that nation building would work over there. We have an awful lot to gain if it could, but it is looking like if may take a generation or more if it is to really work, and that's too long for us to commit so many resources to the task.

quote:
No UN membership...


There's something we agree upon. The UN serves no useful purpose. The UN Security Council has more use than the rest of it, and the Security Council is pretty close to worthless itself, and can often be counterproductive.

Whoever thinks that an organization where all the nations of the world get one vote is going to work productively is a fool. There are far more tiny authoritarian governments than there are freedom loving governments that respect the rights of their citizens. The UN is an orgainzation that works to keep governments in control and strengthen their power. It is not an organization that looks to do the will of the people.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 10:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Radical Islam made it quite clear that they weren't just going to leave us alone. They are fighting a holy war against us wether we want to fight it or not.
Didn't mean to imply that we'd be left alone. WWII proved that you can't totally mind your own business around these parts. Yeah, we'd need to have some kind of world presence. Maybe we can do like North Korea and shoot an unarmed ICBM over another country once a year on Independence Day or something. Have the President, blindfolded, reach into a pot to see who's country gets the surprise overflight. Announce the "winner" during a State of the Union address. Just enough crazy so the worlds a$$holes would think twice about messin with us.

quote:
The UN serves no useful purpose.
If it was up to me, I'd imminent domain the place and turn it into an amusement park with a huge friggin Ferris wheel. And run it with monkeys wearing Kango's and Z. Cavaricci's. That's gotta be a better use of that space than how it's used now.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/16/2010 8:28:56 PM , Rating: 1
What about Israel's state terrorism?, defying countless UN resolutions and all signs pointing them having nuclear weapons?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 3:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Doing that probably would not have accomplished much, the Baath party was very strong in Iraq, and one of his sons likely would have taken his position, perhaps in the form of a bloody coup. I very much dislike the idea of having left him in power as well, but he was the lesser of the evils.

I would also like to point out that once we went in we were stuck there, had we left after we kicked the hornets nest who knows what would have happened. Iraq might be stuck in its current state of division for a very long time, can't say for certain but I think it would have been better to let the Iraqi's sort out their own problems.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 2:14:02 PM , Rating: 3
Had the opposing argument made such broad generalizations you and your kind would have a hissy fit.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Iaiken on 9/14/2010 2:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you add in the Taliban and Iranian operatives trying to stir up conflict.


You mean Al Quada and Iran, not the Taliban... all of which are Shia and think that the Sunni people are just as much the enemy as the Americans. If US forces left, they would simply fight each other for control.

Which is before further complicating things by bringing in the Kurds, Armenians, Gypsies, Shabaks, Yezidis and other minorities...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 1:36:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
An ally in the center of the Middle East?


The dust hasn't settled in Iraq; whether it turns out to be an American ally or not is still an open question. But since when do we invade countries, kill a hundred thousand people, destroy all a country's infrastructure, and spark murderous sectarian warfare just to acquire an ally?

In any case, given that both Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite countries surrounded by hostile Sunni dominated governments, I think the end result might just as plausibly be that Iraq becomes - it already is in many respects - an Iranian ally. Certainly Iran's middle-eastern position was strengthened when we removed it's historical enemy Saddam Hussein. Many of Iraq's most powerful politicians and religious figures have strong ties to Iran.

quote:
Yes because it's important to have good "infrastructure" when you live in a place where you have no civil rights. Where you are dragged from your home and thrown into a wood chipper while your family is made to watch. Where whole villages are gassed and wiped out for no reason. Where tens of thousands are thrown in mass graves and buried.


Got the blinkers on for this argument as well, ha Reclaimer? You really think the situation for the average Iraqi is now better than it was under Saddam?

quote:
Nice apathy. If not ours, than who's?


That is so dumb, I don't even know where to start. So you're saying that no matter how much we f***k up a country, no matter how many of us die, no matter how much American wealth is squandered - and aren't you the guy who is always equating government spending with theft? - it's OK because we got rid of a bad guy. So you think we should also invade North Korea, Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., etc.

But you really are stupid if you think we went into Iraq to help the Iraqis. We invaded Iraq because of hard-nosed, cynical neocon realpolitik criminal nonsense. Are you, by any chance, one of those 25% of Americans who still thinks Bush was a great president?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Bush certainly played a part, but not entirely. After 9/11 jingoism in this country was through the roof, and that includes Democrats as well.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 1:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We invaded Iraq because of hard-nosed, cynical neocon realpolitik criminal nonsense.
Hindsight is 20/20. Damn near all of you supported the administrations and Congress' decision to invade Iraq. Don't BS me and tell me you didn't. That's why we went there. Americans were crying for blood and there were no other "targets" than an a$$hole dictator with ties to terrorist groups responsible for 9/11. Throw in some world sympathy and faulty intelligence (not just our faulty intelligence) and Iraq it is.

Now you got all these armchair quarterbacks with 10 years of info under their belts claiming how the war was soooo f#$ked up and we should've did this and we should've did that. Like wars are usually roses and chocolate.

Nigga please.

Why didn't you smarty arts call your Congressmen and tell them not to give the President authority to declare war? You wanted to go there and your naiveté clouded the reality that tons of people, warriors and innocents alike, were going to die. If you don't want that to happen, quite voting for people that take that sh!t too lightly!!!!!!


By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 2:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Don't BS me and tell me you didn't.


Now that's an interesting point. I didn't support the Iraqi invasion, and the reason was that I wasn't living in the States at the time, so I got a completely different take on the whole build-up to the war than friends of mine back home.

And this whole thing about unnecessary American wars is not aimed at the Republicans. Vietnam was a Democratic travesty. And having studied Asian history in college, I was against that war from the get go.

quote:
That's why we went there. Americans were crying for blood and there were no other "targets" than an a$$hole dictator with ties to terrorist groups responsible for 9/11.


You do realize don't you that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda? And there was a perfectly good target in Osama - who got away.

quote:
Throw in some world sympathy and faulty intelligence (not just our faulty intelligence) and Iraq it is.


Most of that faulty intelligence was manufactured by the Bush administration. The forged reports allegedly showing Nigerian uranium sales to Iraq; and the reports of Iraqi agents meeting with Al-Qaeda agents in some unnamed Eastern European country were both deliberate fabrications.

In the past several years, we've had no end of news of acrimonious debates among Bush's people about the reliability of all the 'evidence' supporting invasion. Far from being indecisive, Bush-Cheney were active cheerleaders for the war.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/15/2010 4:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
No support from me. The government didn't bullshit on Vietnam, why would I let them bullshit me on Iraq?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So you're saying that no matter how much we f***k up a country, no matter how many of us die, no matter how much American wealth is squandered - and aren't you the guy who is always equating government spending with theft? - it's OK because we got rid of a bad guy.


Even better, he's living the old bumper sticker, "My country, right or wrong." There's zero sense of justice in this equation, only a large hatred and ridicule of anyone who would dare question the stance.

And these same people where all for Saddam when he was suppyling us with oil, so again no it's not about killing the bad guy (thought a currently convenient excuse it is), it's all about being a sheeple. Oil doesn't hurt either.

And look at the past centuries at the peoples that had blind faith in their government's military moves. Yeah they worked out quite well.

I don't know how long or often you're here PP but this place here, this website. I do hope your weren't looking for a well thought out and sensible discussion here. Mick even allows clear prejudice to reign.

I have to go now, I hear the board "leaders" reloading.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 4:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And these same people where all for Saddam when he was suppyling us with oil
Using that logic we should be cheering Nigeria and Venezuela too both of those dwarf Iraq's oil imports. While we're down there, Brazil needs a reach around.

quote:
Even better, he's living the old bumper sticker, "My country, right or wrong."
What's wrong with that quote? Is it not your country when it's wrong too? Or do we only like our country when it's right? There are millions of blacks in America that call this place home and wouldn't go anywhere else despite America's past. The more I think about it, the more I like that quote.

quote:
it's all about being a sheeple. Oil doesn't hurt either.
You call someone a sheeple and then commence to regurgitate the talking parrots on TV BS. If we went there for oil we sure got a bad deal then. Brazil sends us almost as much as Iraq.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 4:31:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
"My country, right or wrong."

What's wrong with that quote?


What's wrong with it is that it is invariably used to stifle any criticism of one's own country that contradicts the right-wing story line. You point out that something is dealt with more intelligently in some European country and inevitably some Fox drone will tell you to move to France.

We Americans are not perfect, we make mistakes, and it's not unpatriotic to think that others in the world might have something to teach us. True patriotism is caring enough to want to improve the situation back home. Thinking that your country is always right no matter what it does is childish and dumb.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 10:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We Americans are not perfect, we make mistakes, and it's not unpatriotic to think that others in the world might have something to teach us
The quote says "My country, right or wrong" not "My country, right only". Whether we do wrong or right, it's still my country. It's a friggin simple quote.

quote:
We Americans are not perfect, we make mistakes, and it's not unpatriotic to think that others in the world might have something to teach us.
Nope and that quote doesn't defend wrong nor glorify right. The country, and humanity, is both and we accept both because it's human nature to be both. Good quote.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/16/2010 10:20:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We Americans are not perfect, we make mistakes, and it's not unpatriotic to think that others in the world might have something to teach us. True patriotism is caring enough to want to improve the situation back home. Thinking that your country is always right no matter what it does is childish and dumb.


No it's only patriotic if you're slamming Bush and the war. If you speak out about Obama and the Democrats selling us down the river, you're a racists uneducated dissenter and should be silenced.

quote:
others in the world might have something to teach us


Who? Name some names. I can't wait to see this.


By PaterPelligrino on 9/16/2010 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who? Name some names. I can't wait to see this.


How about the Swiss health care system: it's not government run, has no public option, and the Swiss spend 40% less per capita than we do, they're also healthier than us, and generally happy with their health care, plus everyone is covered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01...

1st paragraph

quote:
Like every other country in Europe, Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens. But the system here does not remotely resemble the model of bureaucratic, socialized medicine often cited by opponents of universal coverage in the United States.


And before you dismiss it out of hand, note that even Bill O’Reilly is an admirer of the Swiss system.

btw, the snide tone in which you ask that question speaks volumes; you really don't think anyone in this world can possibly do anything better than us. Why is that? Are we genetically superior? Chosen by god?

Do you even have a passport? Do yourself a favor and travel for a few mths; Northern Europe would be a good place to start.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even better, he's living the old bumper sticker, "My country, right or wrong."

What's wrong with that quote?


I know the answer will be beyond your comprehension, but the problem? The mere fact you can even ask that question.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 10:47:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know the answer will be beyond your comprehension, but the problem? The mere fact you can even ask that question.
And my would be reply to this post would be beyond yours.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/15/2010 8:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
See my slogan would only accept right. There is no room for wrong with a country that promotes justice.

Only someone totally amoral accepts right or wrong.

And now your reasoning?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/17/2010 1:29:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And now your reasoning?

Looks like Spuke's reasoning must defy verbal written communication.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By lagomorpha on 9/14/2010 5:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
"An ally in the center of the Middle East?"

Hahahahaha the odds of the Iraqis voting in pro-American leaders are a little bit worse than the odds of Iranians voting for pro-American leaders.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/14/2010 9:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
The vote will be bought for American puppets


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/17/2010 1:03:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The vote will be bought for American puppets

OK so we were successful in giving them a US style government. Wait until their become familiar with lobbyists, then they will really loves us.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By DarkAvator on 9/14/2010 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 1
Iraq and Afghanistan are both really messy, having no real physical infrastructure. Vietnam was soo winnable, having a capital city call Hanoi. In Korea, it was back and forth taking each other capital city until a real truce was made. In Vietnam, other than bombing, no troops were sent north. And even in bombing, there are stipulations where USA couldn't bomb airfields and non-firing SAM sites, because afraid of killing Russian advisers. stupid rules in war = lost.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:14:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Iraq and Afghanistan are both really messy, having no real physical infrastructure. Vietnam was soo winnable
The casualty rates for both sides says otherwise.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 1:31:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The casualty rates for both sides says otherwise.
The both hands tied behind our backs say otherwise.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY, that's why we can't easily win these sorts of wars! If our hands weren't back there, then how would we be any better than those we were fighting, what would be the point of the war if we also tortured and terrorized the civilians as the North did?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/15/2010 3:55:16 PM , Rating: 2
We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all the bombs used in wwII. What would you have done differently, with your hands untied? Nuke Hanoi?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 1:48:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vietnam was soo winnable


You entirely miss the point. We were in the wrong. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence. Unless we killed every last living Vietnamese - as it was, about 15% of the entire population died in the war - there was no way we could ever have won that war. What does 'winning' even mean in a situation like that?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair you really need to ask the dead, but in reality what's fairness have to do with it?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Solandri on 9/14/2010 2:15:24 PM , Rating: 1
The Vietnamese people believed they were fighting for independence. The people in power (on both sides) were just using them as a stepping stone to satiate their own desire for power and control.

The greater (and perhaps unanswerable) question is, which side would've actually given the people more of what they actually wanted - independence? If the U.S. had won, would the political model imposed by the U.S. eventually had led to the corrupt South Vietnamese government giving way to a reasonably clean representative democracy, like what's happened in Korea and Japan? Or would it have stayed corrupt until overthrown, like what happened in Cuba and Nicaragua?

It's very rare that you get a chance to see both possibilities play out in real life. Normally you can't compare them side by side because only one of the two alternatives comes about. So any comparison of the two choices ends up being completely hypothetical. North Korea and South Korea is the only example I can think of. Using that country as a guide, I'd say you're in the wrong for not giving the U.S. more benefit of the doubt.


By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 2:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people in power (on both sides) were just using them as a stepping stone to satiate their own desire for power and control.


The North Vietnamese were never anyone's puppet. Ho Chi Minh was first and foremost a freedom fighter. If the United States had really wanted to do the right thing in Vietnam, it would have supported the struggle against the French when Ho Chi Minh asked for our aid. Turning him down and allowing ourselves to be coned by the French into continuing their war just drove the North and Vietcong even further into the Communist camp. As it was, the first thing the Vietnamese did upon winning their war of independence was to fight a border war with their so-called allies the Chinese.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By mcnabney on 9/14/2010 12:28:47 PM , Rating: 3
Not likely to happen and here is why.

Britain lost power due to the costs of fighting two World Wars (from start to finish, the US only gets involved toward the end) and movements of native people for independence. The UK is really not that big, doesn't have that many resources, and isn't terribly overpopulated.

The United States gained power from strategic isolation and considerable natural resources and growing population. It also capitalized on a european brain-drain. Say what you will about global conflicts over the last 75 years, but Pax Americana has been a pretty good deal for most. In many ways we are kind of 'stuck' as a superpower. Other nations have an expectation that we have to be involved.

The only real way to have a permanent shift to the east is to have a war. Not a terribly good idea. Do you really think for a second that the US wouldn't use nukes if provoked by China? Every time I hear reasons to spend big bucks to prepare for a large conventional war I just role my eyes. There isn't going to be another big conventional war. A land war in the asian continent is going to involve nukes, potentially a lot of them. China needs to remember that they don't get to play by the same rulebook as was used in the 20th century. They can claim all the 'rights' they want, but if they drive this into a conflict I am quite certain that the US will not stand-by and have terms dictated to it. Kind of a depressing future, isn't it.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Britain lost power due to the costs of fighting two World Wars (from start to finish, the US only gets involved toward the end) and movements of native people for independence. The UK is really not that big, doesn't have that many resources, and isn't terribly overpopulated.

And compared to china the US isn't terribly overpopulated either... Point is we constitute almost half the worlds expenditure on munitions, this i guarantee you will not last!
quote:
The only real way to have a permanent shift to the east is to have a war.

In Soviet Russia, they disagree with you!
quote:
Every time I hear reasons to spend big bucks to prepare for a large conventional war I just role my eyes.

I agree with you here.
quote:
They can claim all the 'rights' they want, but if they drive this into a conflict I am quite certain that the US will not stand-by and have terms dictated to it.

What right does a nation with ~300 million people have to dictate what a nation of ~1.5 billion can and cannot do. Economic power will translate into world power. We should make the same mistakes as the UK by trying to hold on to world power after it becomes impractical.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By mcnabney on 9/14/2010 1:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
Your right. The expenditures for conventional forces and too many forward bases cannot last, nor will they. However, the strategic backbone will firmly remain in place.

The USSR was completely different. First, they had total control in only a few places and minor influences in places like Eqypt or Syria. The US was/is involved everywhere. After the breakup, the Russia that remained was more interested in being Russian than continuing to push the communist revolution (in which they were never communist).

Economic power doesn't have to translate to world power. Japan has had plenty of opportunities to misuse their economic power, but don't do so. Instead they act with other nations toward advances that are mutually beneficial.

The risk here is if a serious economic crisis develops in the US that can be 'politically' assigned to beligerant acts by China. A real war with China won't be like Korea. It will happen very quickly.

Here is my guess:
1. Economic depression in the US, unemployment over 15%
2. China makes unexpected moves against Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, or Afghanistan.
3. Plenty of Wharrgarbl all around.
4. US sends naval assets into SCS
5. Minor incidental skirmish
6. Carrier aircraft and cruise missile attack some underlying supporting asset
7. China launches waves of long range antiship missiles, sinking one or more US carriers
8. Unspecified attacks against land-based Chinesse assets
9. Large short/intermediate range attacks from China against other theatre targets (Taiwan, Seoul, Tokyo)
10. Small atomic weapons used against key chinese C3 and strategic assets.
11. And from there


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your right. The expenditures for conventional forces and too many forward bases cannot last, nor will they. However, the strategic backbone will firmly remain in place.

I agree very much with this, that is why I make the analogy to the UK.
quote:
The USSR was completely different. First, they had total control in only a few places and minor influences in places like Eqypt or Syria.

They did have a massive presence in Eastern Europe, and there were significant socialist and communist movements in Western Europe at the time, which is largely what dictated US policy of containment in Europe, and provided adequate fuel for a massive military industrial complex that exists to this day.
quote:
Economic power doesn't have to translate to world power. Japan has had plenty of opportunities to misuse their economic power, but don't do so. Instead they act with other nations toward advances that are mutually beneficial.

That is the best route to enrichment any nation can take.(I also understand they got gobs of help thanks to US military protection)
quote:
The risk here is if a serious economic crisis develops in the US that can be 'politically' assigned to belligerent acts by China. A real war with China won't be like Korea. It will happen very quickly.

Hopefully in the modern globalized and interconnected world of today, such wars between massive entities like you describe will not happen, protection through mutual reliance. If any kind of war were to break out it would likely be in the form of proxy wars, similar to the cold war, which hopefully wont come to fruition.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By sviola on 9/14/2010 2:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
While this an interesting scenario, I doubt that would ever happen this way. I would much rather argue that what would trigger a war with the US would be by some dumb action from North Korea, which could lead to an incident with China.

And a war with China wouldn't be as easy as you play it to be. First, I don't think nukes are a viable war option for a couple of reasons: China have them as well, Russia won't be very fond of the US throwing Nukes near their territory and mostly because this simple makes places unusable for quite a time.

As for a full fledged conventional war, I find that also very improbable, as the amounts of troops the US would require would be ovewhelming and might weaken key american positions around the world (specially in Middle-east), which would lead to enemy countries taking their chances against american assets and allies (I can foresee North Korea attacking SK and Japan in case of a USxChina war).

Not that the US don't have the power to win a war against China (by the contrary, I think it has), but this would be a war that could easily become world wide (specially in the case of NK and Iran getting involved).


RE: I just wanted to say....
By zixin on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By mcnabney on 9/14/2010 1:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what you are talking about.

There have been over 2000 nuclear tests to date, many of them atmospheric. Modern nuclear weapons are relatively low yield and high accuracy. I am not saying that they are a 'good thing' to happen, but they can be used in limited quantities in a theatre engagement. The consequences for the region wouldn't be fantastic, but life would go on. A true global and strategic exchange that involves potentially thousand of detonations falls under your fears and is quite planet changing.

For example. If China hit the major population centers of the west coast with 300kt weapons - say 2 each in SD, LA, SF, and Seattle. About half of the cities would be a total loss and a third of the population would be dead/dying. Fallout would impact SE California, Sacramento, Reno, northwestern Washington and part of Canada east of Vancouver. There would be massive population evacuations, some radiation sicknesses, and higher cancer rates for those near the west coast. Not the end of the world despite the initial deaths of several million and economic damage in the trillions.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you think that WWIII never happened?


Day ain't over yet.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/15/2010 3:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Especially if you're a broke war mongering U.S.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 12:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do the rest of the more advanced nations in the world spend less? Because much of Europe relies on the US for military protection. They know we have a strong military and our required to protect them in the event of an attack.


So according to you, rather than evil we're just stupid? (That's my opinion as well, btw.)

Hard to see, tho, how Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan fell under our obligation to defend Europe and Japan from invasion.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By mcnabney on 9/14/2010 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 1
Vietnam was our foolish involvement in propping-up a dictator during a lengthy civil war. You can blame the French for getting us dragged into that.

Iraq had no reason besides the POTUS wanting to get back at a petty dictator that got one over on daddy.

Afghanistan was a perfectly legitimate war that was won more than 8 years ago. If it wasn't for Iraq there would be huge opportunities for Americans to be working with the Afghanies in developing their natural resources right now. We snatched loss from the jaws of victory.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iraq had no reason besides the POTUS wanting to get back at a petty dictator that got one over on daddy.


Obviously there was much more involved than that, however "got one over on daddy"...? Last Ichecked the Gulf war was an astounding success, and the model by which wars of intervention should be modeled. The Coalition def had just cause, not too mention we dealt such a heavy blow the Iraqi military, that they were still crippled by the time the second gulf war started.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 12:48:27 PM , Rating: 1
Bush Sr. blew it imo. Iraq should have been occupied the first time, Saddam removed, and whatever form of government the Iraq people choose put in his place. Then we wouldn't have had to go back a second time, if in fact, we even had to go back. Who cares if it's unpopular? WE know what's the right thing to do.

I just didn't understand. If you're going to commit the lives of our service men and women, then fully do the job and make it mean something. We just sorta went in there, eliminated their military, and then pulled out and left the real problem still in charge. Ugh!


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, had we gone in, destroyed the Government, and promptly left the nation to its own devices the Religions sects would have torn the country apart! It would have been total anarchy! Not too mention we do not have the right to invade any country we please. The original war was a very just one, which was to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's aggression, not too invade Iraq.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
Look you can throw a steak at a bulldog and tell him to behave all you want, but that steak is getting eaten.

Saddam demonstrated, quite clearly, that he would never play nice with the world community and obey the terms of the U.N. Even after the war he constantly fired at Allied planes in the 'no-fly zone' and did other nose-thumbing. So sure, we liberated Kuwait, but didn't remove the underlying problem.



RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
I understand all that very well, but what I am saying is that we made the situation much worse by invading, we opened up long standing hatreds between the Sunnis and the Shiites, that eventually led to a bloody insurrection and civil war as the two sides viciously fought each other for power in the new Government.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 2:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we opened up long standing hatreds between the Sunnis and the Shiites, that eventually led to a bloody insurrection and civil war as the two sides viciously fought each other for power in the new Government.


Perhaps all this stated was an added motivation to attack? The fewer the better?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
I can't technically 'disprove' that, but honestly that is just pure speculation.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By FITCamaro on 9/14/2010 1:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
No what happened is the American people. We don't have the stomach for war. 9/11 changed that for a short time but then people, due to the media, fell back into the same old patterns. They expect the military to accomplish feats of heroism without losing a single man. Well war doesn't work that way.

The Gulf War suffered from this. We could have taken out Saddam then and there. But the people weren't wanting a longer conflict. Because while yes, we would've had Saddam in a week or less, we would've had the same drawn out campaign we have had for the past 8 years.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/16/2010 2:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
For a country that doesn't have the stomach for war we sure manage to get in a lot of 'em. Good thing we don't like war :)


RE: I just wanted to say....
By PaterPelligrino on 9/14/2010 1:01:12 PM , Rating: 3
Vietnam, as would have been obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Asian history, was fighting for it's independence. It had been engaged in an independence struggle for about a thousand years, most of that time against it's historic enemy the Chinese, then the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the US. Communism was just a fashionable ideology that the Vietnamese hitched their independence struggle to. It's telling that Ho Chi Minh, knowing our history far better than we knew his, wrote to Roosevelt and then Eisenhower asking for our help in Vietnam's own revolutionary war against foreign domination.

The South was never seen as a legitimate government by Vietnamese anywhere and would never have lasted a second without foreign support.

Iraq was a lie from the word go that Bush-Cheney sold the American public to further some half-wit neocon world domination scenario.

Afghanistan should have been a quick snatch-and-grab of all the top Al-Qaeda nutjobs. Committing ourselves to nation building in a country that has never had a functioning government was just dumb.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Committing ourselves to nation building in a country that has never had a functioning government was just dumb.


This is one of the most simple, yet rarely understood concepts, of why occupying foreign nations with the notion of 'freeing them' is almost universally a bad idea.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By YashBudini on 9/14/2010 1:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Despite all the oil and mineral contracts?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
I assume you are being sarcastic, but in case you are not, then yes. :p


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Spuke on 9/14/2010 4:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Committing ourselves to nation building in a country that has never had a functioning government was just dumb.
I can dig this. Why we continue to do so is beyond me. Why do we even get involved at all is beyond me? Most of these countries we get wrapped up in have little to no significance, strategically, at all. Not saying we shouldn't retaliate when attacked but can we do it right sometime? Iraq should not have been the place. While we had the world's sympathy, we should've asked for access to countries with Al Quaeda to fight them directly. We would've gotten way more done.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Skywalker123 on 9/15/2010 4:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
There was NO real civil war, only a nationalist movement to throw out the French and later, Americans. We won in Afghanistan 8 years ago? LOL then why are our soldiers still there and dying? 8 years from now we'll see who "won"


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
You should consider that after WW2, the US commanded a HUGE portion of the worlds gnp, but today that share is several orders smaller, we simply will not be able to finace the policing of the world any longer.

I think we are moving away from the cold war style of world politics, with 2 monolithic great powers vying for power, that power is now becoming more evenly dispersed among the nations of the world, hopefully less imbalance will translate to less conflict. Militarily the US is still dominate, but it will not be long before China and India surpass economically, which will be followed by military might.

The worlds distribution of power will more closely resemble pre WWI Europe, with many similarly sized powers, opposed to one or two.

Also I don't think the Op's post was particularly offensive, a little arrogant in its wording, but his point is there non the less.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 12:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
True. Like how Canadians bash us for our military spending while safely living under our protective umbrella. It must be nice...


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, not dumping a massive portion of their nations output on machines of war must be nice.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, not dumping a massive portion of their nations output on machines of war must be nice.


Did you miss my point? They don't have to because we do it for them.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 12:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, I did not miss your point, I don't think it is necessary for either of the two nations to be doing that, and besides, who is going to invade Canada... us?


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 1:04:54 PM , Rating: 1
Lol I love that logic. "Only build a military if you THINK you might be invaded"

Thanks, I've had my laugh for today.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 1:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Second straw man argument argument today.., of course I think we should have a military and a powerful one at that, but we do not need to deploy said military all over the world in costly wars and for force projection. Before WW2 we did very well for ourselves staying out of the worlds business, if the need arises then sure build up. You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere with military spending.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 1:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before WW2 we did very well for ourselves staying out of the worlds business


HUH!? Before WW2 we engaged in isolationism and watched as European idiocy dragged us into the bloodiest most horrible war the world had ever seen, WWI. That's doing well for ourselves?

In fact that's what WWI and WW2 should have taught us, if anything. Is that we can't sit here in our protected North America and think nothing that happens in the rest of the world effects us. SOMEONE needs to be proactive and guard against that kind of crap, and if it's gotta be us, than so be it.

quote:
You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere with military spending.


I agree with this, of course. But our military spending is something like 5% of GDP. You guys are making it seem like it's bleeding us dry or something. Our government is wasting a ton of money, but it sure isn't on the military.


RE: I just wanted to say....
By nuarbnellaffej on 9/14/2010 2:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HUH!? Before WW2 we engaged in isolationism and watched as European idiocy dragged us into the bloodiest most horrible war the world had ever seen, WWI. That's doing well for ourselves? In fact that's what WWI and WW2 should have taught us, if anything. Is that we can't sit here in our protected North America and think nothing that happens in the rest of the world effects us. SOMEONE needs to be proactive and guard against that kind of crap, and if it's gotta be us, than so be it.

Yes that's all fine and well, but the age of massive wars between great powers has almost become a thing of the past, if another Hitler or Hirohito pops up than I agree that needs to be dealt with, we should not however be policing the world as we do today, It's simply too expensive.

quote:
I agree with this, of course. But our military spending is something like 5% of GDP. You guys are making it seem like it's bleeding us dry or something. Our government is wasting a ton of money, but it sure isn't on the military.

The biggest waste imo are the massive amounts we spend on inefficient social programs and subsidies to uncompetitive industries, but military spending is not immune from such criticisms. Five percent of gdp is a huge amount compared to most of the world.