Posted on 12/16/2019 3:36:54 PM PST by rintintin
One word....
Antifa.
sending our troops into Afghanistan was a very poor substitute for sending them in to take over Saudi (which is the situs of most financing and organizing of world IslamoNazi terror including 9/11... along with Iran of course).
Because we have tried to help our long term situation by helping others in the short term.
OK so the USA should not have been there in Vietnam and should have allowed the Russians to spread communist all over South East Asia.? Or maybe the USA should have stayed there after WW2 and kept the French out such as to let the Vietnamese have their own country.?
You can point out dirty politicians or corrupt company execs, but you can’t indict an industry that provides the only constitutionally mandated function, national defense.
The Constitution expressly forbids a standing army and the professional liars weaseled around it. Now we are reaping the results. We live under the heel of a tyrannical government. The blood of our sons and daughters put money in their pockets. Your tax dollars at work.
Not to mention protecting the fields which produce 82% of the world’s opium. CIA is big on drug trafficking. Always has been.
We’re at war?
Officials didn’t know who the enemy was and had little sense of what an achievable “victory” might look like. “We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking,” said Douglas Lute, the Army three-star general who oversaw the conflict from the White House during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
—
Why would someone who knows he hasn’t any idea what he’s doing not resign?
He was the problem and people like him are the problem.
He seems not to realize that his excuse for failure - that he’s a self-acknowledged clueless buffoon - is not a good excuse.
“But Afghanistan had not attacked us.”
Moronic.
Sorry, but true. You’re a moron to say this.
The value of war:
You keep an army prepared.
You test new weapons.
You dispose of old ordinances on your enemy.
You keep people employed in the defense industries.
Sell weapons to allies.
Warfare then evolves to deal with new threats.
All good. Did I miss anything?
“The Constitution expressly forbids a standing army...blood of our sons and daughters put money in their pockets. Your tax dollars at work.” [SanchoP, post 26]
Whatever the Constitution says or doesn’t say in a legalistic manner about the detailed organization and activities of the armed forces, it is incontrovertible that the militia system of the early Republic was deficient in providing for the common defense. This was realized on a practical level during the War of 1812; the professionalization of the military was begun after that war ended and went hand-in-hand with technical advances made possible by the Industrial Revolution.
Today, forum members who pine for the days of naught but citizen soldiers armed with naught but small arms had best resign themselves to losing.
The draft ended 46 years ago. All fretting about what leaders are doing with “our sons and daughters” became irrelevant at that moment: today’s troops are not helpless children being exploited, they are adults who volunteer. Indeed, the very fact they have volunteered elevates them to a higher moral plane of adulthood than isolationists, conspiracy theorists, libertarians, and pacifists.
There is but one choice: pay in money now or pay in blood later. Choosing the second alternative brings uglier outcomes. And the final bill will be much higher.
As long as Man is evil there will be war.
So staying out of them is no easy matter.
We can try, but we don’t have the final say. Our enemies get a vote too.
Og course, that is not the stupid view of things Wapost’s advertisers want WAPost readers to take.
It keeps us all from having the leisure and money to properly investigate them and their criminality.
Next?
This happens every few hundred years. Radical Muhammadanism gets its panties in a twist and goes on an imperialist expansionist tear.
You can’t conquer them because they have no agreed-upon control structure, no overarching commander. No one who can agree to a surrender and then enforce it among the radical Muhammadans.
So you have two and only two choices. Capitulate and submit to Sharia law, or play Whac-A-Muzzy. Kill them whenever they pop up, wherever they pop up, and keep killing until they decide to stop popping up.
And it’s better to take the war to them than wait for them to bring it to you.
War is good for the economy, always has been
Magnum44. You’ve got it. We have never made our military policies “win” policies. This applies to Vietnam where I was as a journalist.
Only when we get rid of the “we can’t do this” generals and put in people who say “our policy is to win, not have a stalemate”, will American be able to totally defeat our enemies.
Afghanistan is not a real country. It is a series of feudal and drug kingdoms designated as a country. We need to level Taliban-controlled areas (collateral damage be damned) until they understand that wherever they are, we will be too, to destroy them and their infrastructure, down to the last horse, camel and soldier.
We could have won in Vietnam relatively easily compared to the price we paid for not doing so (plus the loss of freedom for about 25 Million citizens of SVN, Laos and Cambodian, and the millions who died in communist revenge genocide policies after 1975).
Time to get “warriors”, not “worriers”/
Whatever the Constitution says or doesn’t say in a legalistic manner about the detailed organization and activities of the armed forces, it is incontrovertible that the militia system of the early Republic was deficient in providing for the common defense. This was realized on a practical level during the War of 1812; the professionalization of the military was begun after that war ended and went hand-in-hand with technical advances made possible by the Industrial Revolution.
That pesky ol' Constitution. It's not really the law of the land. Feel free to ignore/revise anything that doesn't suit you.
Today, forum members who pine for the days of naught but citizen soldiers armed with naught but small arms had best resign themselves to losing.
We're 0-5 since WWII (0-7 if you count the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.) With 40 million illegals in our country,I'm not sure we can even call ourselves a sovereign nation. Just exactly how much losing should we resign ourselves to?
The draft ended 46 years ago. All fretting about what leaders are doing with “our sons and daughters” became irrelevant at that moment: today’s troops are not helpless children being exploited, they are adults who volunteer. Indeed, the very fact they have volunteered elevates them to a higher moral plane of adulthood than isolationists, conspiracy theorists, libertarians, and pacifists.
During the Civil War it was acceptable to pay someone to go to war for you. Today,instead of paying out of your own pocket we use tax dollars. Doesn't that make your conscience feel all warm and fuzzy. How progressive.
There is but one choice: pay in money now or pay in blood later. Choosing the second alternative brings uglier outcomes. And the final bill will be much higher.
------- and there we have the moneyshot. Would it be OK with you if we just sign over our paychecks to the thugs in DC?
“you can’t indict an industry that provides the only constitutionally mandated function, national defense.”
Why not, if they’re lobbying - successfully - for needless, costly wars? The presidency is a constitutionally mandated office, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used corruptly. Or would you have told us we couldn’t ‘indict’ Hillary, if she became president, because the presidency is “constitutionally mandated”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.