Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

We never should have gone into Iraq, but are you saying we shouldn't have originally gone into Afghanistan?

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you and I am assuming you weren't for Obama's Libya war.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

We won the war? Why because GWB declared victory? We are still there and we have kids dying weekly. We have not won the war becuase it isn't over and oh by the way it looks like it will bankrupt us also... Your definition of victory is a hell of a lot different than mine.

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by jms62

We won the war? Why because GWB declared victory? We are still there and we have kids dying weekly. We have not won the war becuase it isn't over and oh by the way it looks like it will bankrupt us also... Your definition of victory is a hell of a lot different than mine.

Are you talking about Afghanistan? We were in Kabul in no time with the Northern Alliance. Taliban fighters were switching sides, we should have been gone then, that was years ago.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I disagree with on that, we won the war, pretty easily at that, modern warfare has no relation to 2,000 years, but we should have been out of there right away.

As far as Iraq, I agree with you and I am assuming you weren't for Obama's Libya war.

But lets face it, stopping the wars would help but the real problem is entitlement spending. Ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

what war did we win?

and actually, modern warfare is comparable, especially in afganistan.
for comparison, the welsh successfully fought the much larger, richer england for centuries by using guerilla tactics. it was only when Edward 1 decided to install permanent garrisons (and built 8 state of the art castles in strategic areas) that wales was finally conquered.
lincolns (and others) huge fear towards the end of the civil war here was to have to face guerrilla warfare. luckily it didn't happen.

another great example? vietnam.
the 'war on terror' can't be fought conventionally. war in afganistan can't necessarily be either. unless we garrison troops all over that country, for years, we will never get a good grip on that country. is that what you want to see happen?
we've already spent billions on a country worth millions. to what end? and terrorism is still a threat, and will remain so.
yes, invading afganistan absolutely was a mistake. invading that country will prove a complete waste. we can't get that country to become peaceful, and we will fight there as long as we remain without a real end in sight. why? what will be gained?

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what war did we win?

and actually, modern warfare is comparable, especially in afganistan.
for comparison, the welsh successfully fought the much larger, richer england for centuries by using guerilla tactics. it was only when Edward 1 decided to install permanent garrisons (and built 8 state of the art castles in strategic areas) that wales was finally conquered.
lincolns (and others) huge fear towards the end of the civil war here was to have to face guerrilla warfare. luckily it didn't happen.

another great example? vietnam.
the 'war on terror' can't be fought conventionally. war in afganistan can't necessarily be either. unless we garrison troops all over that country, for years, we will never get a good grip on that country. is that what you want to see happen?
we've already spent billions on a country worth millions. to what end? and terrorism is still a threat, and will remain so.
yes, invading afganistan absolutely was a mistake. invading that country will prove a complete waste. we can't get that country to become peaceful, and we will fight there as long as we remain without a real end in sight. why? what will be gained?

Even Vietnam is not applicable to today, we have bombs that we can guide to specific spots, night vision glasses, by far the best equipment in the world. We, with the aide of the Norther Alliance, got to Kabul very quickly, then we should have left. The Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks as they not only gave Bin Laden safe haven, they also let him train terrorists there. Once we knocked the Taliban out of power, the message was delivered and we should have left, that would have been back in 2002.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

Even Vietnam is not applicable to today, we have bombs that we can guide to specific spots, night vision glasses, by far the best equipment in the world. We, with the aide of the Norther Alliance, got to Kabul very quickly, then we should have left. The Taliban was complicit in the 9/11 attacks as they not only gave Bin Laden safe haven, they also let him train terrorists there. Once we knocked the Taliban out of power, the message was delivered and we should have left, that would have been back in 2002.

fat lot of good modern technology is when you can't keep up with someone's location from day to day. they don't recognize borders either. you can't knock them out conventionally. it takes intelligence and strikes. and those could take place anywhere- which causes huge problems. witness drone strikes in pakistan. those aren't exactly great for keeping good relations with people.
of course it's applicable to compare to vietnam. very similar set ups with a populace you can't trust, and an ability to know who is the bad guy?

[Thepaindispenser]

Originally Posted by Danzig

fat lot of good modern technology is when you can't keep up with someone's location from day to day. they don't recognize borders either. you can't knock them out conventionally. it takes intelligence and strikes. and those could take place anywhere- which causes huge problems. witness drone strikes in pakistan. those aren't exactly great for keeping good relations with people.

I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.

As opposed to conventianl war which DOESN'T kill innocent people?

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Thepaindispenser

I agree I think the drones attacks are horrible, they are killing innocent people and nobody seems to care.

Nobody cares that a teenaged U.S. citizen was targeted by the double-super-secret panel.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes I am. No country has ever won a war in Afghanistan in over 2000 years. Going to war in Afghanistan Bankrupt the Soviet Union. Yet we are arrogant enough to go all in thinking we would make history??? At the end of the day we got Bin Laden with a small elite force.... Wouldn't that have been a method that could be used from the get go? We went into Iraq so George Bush could show his father that he was up to the task... We went into Afghanistan as vengence for 911 when all along a small elite force was all that was needed.

We didn't go all in, that was the issue from the beginning. Both wars were fought without a clear military objective and are therefore by definition, not winnable. It has been the problem with the strategies since WWII, not once has a clear objective been defined for our efforts in any theater, that is why we have been fighting forever and not accomplishing a thing.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

We didn't go all in, that was the issue from the beginning. Both wars were fought without a clear military objective and are therefore by definition, not winnable. It has been the problem with the strategies since WWII, not once has a clear objective been defined for our efforts in any theater, that is why we have been fighting forever and not accomplishing a thing.

This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.

they go hand in hand. it takes that much longer to 'win' if you have no strategy and spend your time running around putting out fires.

to win a war you need money, more money and yet more money.
and before you get into it, you better know it's winnable. afganistan has never been winnable. the war on terror isn't winnable. you can't fight it conventionally. it's not a country.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

This discussion is about the financial aspect not military strategy.

I get that but the two need to be intertwined. If there is no victory objective you will continue to fight and spend or you will have wasted billions (trillions) on an objectiveless war.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I get that but the two need to be intertwined. If there is no victory objective you will continue to fight and spend or you will have wasted billions (trillions) on an objectiveless war.

Romney wants to not only start a war with Iran asap as outlined here, he wants to increase the defense budget spending, in spite of the Pentagon saying they don't need it.

Why? All those government contracts to the friends of the Bush Year Neocons who are on Romney's foreign policy/defense team. Haliburton and the other defense contractors are losing money quickly under Obama and his budget tightening ways.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Romney wants to not only start a war with Iran asap as outlined here, he wants to increase the defense budget spending, in spite of the Pentagon saying they don't need it.

Why? All those government contracts to the friends of the Bush Year Neocons who are on Romney's foreign policy/defense team. Haliburton and the other defense contractors are losing money quickly under Obama and his budget tightening ways.

What evidence do you have that Romney wants to start a war with Iran?

The second assertion is even more laughable, but I'll bite, what evidence do you have that Romney want to give government contracts to the "friends of the Bush Year Neocons?"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

What evidence do you have that Romney wants to start a war with Iran?

Romney's words on the subject of Israel and Iran over the past year.

The second assertion is even more laughable, but I'll bite, what evidence do you have that Romney want to give government contracts to the "friends of the Bush Year Neocons?"

The names of Romney's campaign advisors (many of whom are Bush-era neocons) and their previous history with government contracts while working with or advising the Bush-Cheney White House.

Paying attention to politics is worth it.