WAR..What is it good for?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Proof of this is comparison of support for the invasion of Afghanistan versus Iraq.

Disagree completely.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two totally different animals. Afghanistan has gone MUCH more smoothly than Iraq. Our losses in Afghanistan are much less than Iraq.

I can guarantee you if we faced the type of insurgency we have in Iraq people on the TV would be screaming that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by fastpat
War has always enable one group to dominate another; and enriched a few at the expense of many. And killed millions, the warfare totals of the 20th century alone were at least 100 million.

That's all it's ever done; that's all it will ever do.

See, war is good for population control. Without it, the natural resources of the planet would've been consumed by now.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Disagree completely.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two totally different animals. Afghanistan has gone MUCH more smoothly than Iraq. Our losses in Afghanistan are much less than Iraq.

I can guarantee you if we faced the type of insurgency we have in Iraq people on the TV would be screaming that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either.

The War Against Afghanistan lost its' legitimacy the moment it became nation building and the US government allied itself with the major narcotics producers in the country. Further, the Taliban still controls most of Afghanistan, meaning that the Bush'ists have been a failure there as well. Not to mention the glaringly obvious fact that Bin Laden was allowed to escape.

Of course, Iraq has been one continuous war crime. In that regard, only, the two military adventures are different.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
See, war is good for population control. Without it, the natural resources of the planet would've been consumed by now.

In the 20th century war has been a catastrophe for europeans, creating the need for importing labor from Islamic countries, with the anticipated results.

Similar to the situation in America today, wherein 100% of the population increase is from third world immigration, not from native Americans.

[Jim Richards]

And that, my friends, is what the neo-cons want, access to cheap labor!

[Moses]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
... reduces surplus population in two ways: First by reducing the young adult male populationwhich leads to a second reduction; fewer children in the next generation...

The number of young adult males is almost irrelevant to a populations growth. You assume that when there is a shortage of men, some women will go childless. That is not the case. Women rarely have difficulty finding a "volunteer" when they decide to reproduce.

Limit the number of young females and we could have a problem.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
The number of young adult males is almost irrelevant to a populations growth. You assume that when there is a shortage of men, some women will go childless. That is not the case. Women rarely have difficulty finding a "volunteer" when they decide to reproduce.

Limit the number of young females and we could have a problem.

There are other considerations as well. For example, in the south approximately 25% of the adult male population of reproductive age was killed, leaving a huge hole in the culture since those that volunteered to defend their country were arguably the "best and brightest" among the citizenry, and these men were lost abruptly. The effects of this, while difficult to measure quantitatively, were huge. The same was experienced by the major participants in World War One. The ruling class in Britain was devastated, for example.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Disagree completely.

Afghanistan and Iraq are two totally different animals. Afghanistan has gone MUCH more smoothly than Iraq. Our losses in Afghanistan are much less than Iraq.

I can guarantee you if we faced the type of insurgency we have in Iraq people on the TV would be screaming that we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either.

Rick, my response was to this statement:

Im not so sure. I think if this were a war worth fighting, if the reasons were true, and the enemy identifiable we would probably see a huge flood of patriotism and support for this war.

And there hasn't been support in Iraq since day one. And there is support for Afghanistan. The reasons are based on the quote above, and the proof is comparing Iraq with Afghanistan.

And Afghanistan is far from being straightened out....sadly we diverted our attention from there.....

And I don't agree with you......if the insurgency had taken place in Afghanistan, you can take it to the bank that America would've been behind this admin all the way (provided they act accordingly by sending more troops, which is also another criticism factor here....not being effective at the job.....

Think about it...WHY does it have to take years and years and years? We have the #1 army in the world......so WHY does it need to take so long? The truth of the matter is, if executed correctly at the beginning, there would've been little insurgency today. The reason the insurgency became so strong is because they were left unchecked for a year or more (was that Fallujah where the movement started????) We took over that city (I'm thinking it was Fallujah....), then abandoned it, then took over again, then abandoned again..... His own father described the scenario playing out today in a book back in 1996....it's not like it should've been a surprise to his son.....

[Moneyguy1]

Moses

Good point, but it did work in Europe for the 19th and much of the 20th century with birthrates. Cvilians are no longer off limits, at least for the last century..World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Rwanda, the beat goes on....

Then again, maybe we are pre-programmed to self destruct when the population density gets past a critical point.

[tabs]

Humans are like RATs In A CAGE....they will eat their young...

As a side note..the 1912 Edition of the Encylopedia Britanica is considered to be the best edition ever...the reason is that they were never to achieve that level of schlorship again because so many of the contributors were killed during WW1.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Rick, my response was to this statement:





And there hasn't been support in Iraq since day one. And there is support for Afghanistan. The reasons are based on the quote above, and the proof is comparing Iraq with Afghanistan.

And Afghanistan is far from being straightened out....sadly we diverted our attention from there.....

And I don't agree with you......if the insurgency had taken place in Afghanistan, you can take it to the bank that America would've been behind this admin all the way (provided they act accordingly by sending more troops, which is also another criticism factor here....not being effective at the job.....

Think about it...WHY does it have to take years and years and years? We have the #1 army in the world......so WHY does it need to take so long? The truth of the matter is, if executed correctly at the beginning, there would've been little insurgency today. The reason the insurgency became so strong is because they were left unchecked for a year or more (was that Fallujah where the movement started????) We took over that city (I'm thinking it was Fallujah....), then abandoned it, then took over again, then abandoned again..... His own father described the scenario playing out today in a book back in 1996....it's not like it should've been a surprise to his son.....

I'm not always in total agreement with you, but I think you nailed it completely. Afganistan would've had huge support if we stayed focused there. Iraq was a diversion to satisfy B2's vision before ever taking office. It never made sense, though it's nice that Saddam is out. We have yet to see what's the result of his ouster.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
....And there hasn't been support in Iraq since day one. And there is support for Afghanistan. The reasons are based on the quote above, and the proof is comparing Iraq with Afghanistan.

And Afghanistan is far from being straightened out....sadly we diverted our attention from there....

The only reason that the liberals have not spent the effort to undermine support for our efforts in Afghanistan is because Iraq is just an easier target. Initially there was strong support for our war in Iraq (look at the polls at the time). The terrorists and their liberal friends have just had a lot of time to influence the public now.

Originally posted by cool_chick
...And I don't agree with you......if the insurgency had taken place in Afghanistan, you can take it to the bank that America would've been behind this admin all the way (provided they act accordingly by sending more troops, which is also another criticism factor here....not being effective at the job....

Why would it matter whether the terrorists were in Afghanistan or Iraq...or Montana?...

Originally posted by cool_chick
....Think about it...WHY does it have to take years and years and years? We have the #1 army in the world......so WHY does it need to take so long? The truth of the matter is, if executed correctly at the beginning, there would've been little insurgency today. ...

The reason it takes so long (with the #1 army in the world) is because the Army does not know who to kill. They could kill every man woman and child in the country in a few days...And the AF or Navy could do it in a few hours. The problem is that it is a police matter and not a true war. Our soldiers face more restrictions on how they do battle than ever in the history of war. Any other country would just firebomb the cities where there is resistance...and be done with it. As we did in previous wars.

If the terrorists did not recieve so much support in the US by Democratic leaders (Its another Vietnam per Kennedy, etc)..they would have stopped long ago. The liberals continue to give them hope that they will become the majority and run (surrender, withdraw...whatever you want to call it )and go back to coddling terrorists as before.

Originally posted by cool_chick
....The reason the insurgency became so strong is because they were left unchecked for a year or more (was that Fallujah where the movement started????) We took over that city (I'm thinking it was Fallujah....), then abandoned it, then took over again, then abandoned again..... His own father described the scenario playing out today in a book back in 1996....it's not like it should've been a surprise to his son.....

Actually the movement started here with Teddy Kennedy and Michael Moore. This about Fallujah is really silly. Would you have us remove the citizens from cities in Iraq and not ever let them return? Should we just execute everyone there? That makes no sense at all.

If his father had finished the job...or if Clinton had not ignored the problem (too busy with his intern) we would not have any of the problems there that we do now...and 9/11 would not have happened.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by fintstone
[B]The only reason that the liberals have not spent the effort to undermine support for our efforts in Afghanistan is because Iraq is just an easier target. Initially there was strong support for our war in Iraq (look at the polls at the time). The terrorists and their liberal friends have just had a lot of time to influence the public now.

That would be incorrect. If that were correct, there would be "influence of the public" of afghanistan, Iraq I, etc. But alas, there is not. And there was so not "strong support" for Iraq.....that's so not true....

The reason it takes so long (with the #1 army in the world) is because the Army does not know who to kill. They could kill every man woman and child in the country in a few days...And the AF or Navy could do it in a few hours. The problem is that it is a police matter and not a true war. Our soldiers face more restrictions on how they do battle than ever in the history of war. Any other country would just firebomb the cities where there is resistance...and be done with it.

Then why didn't Iraq I last years and years and years?

Iraq I - 400,000 troops
Iraq II - 180,000ish troops

hmmmmmmmmm

The real trend in America is lactually ack of accountability and finger-pointing....wild excuses to detract from same.....

If the terrorists did not recieve so much support in the US by Democratic leaders (Its another Vietnam Kennedy, etc)..they would have stopped long ago. The liberals continue to give them hope that they will become the majority and run (surrender, withdraw...whatever you want to call it )and go back to coddling terrorists as before.

Actually the movement started here with Teddy kennedy and Michael Moore. This about Fallujah is really silly. Would you have us remove the citizens from cities in Iraq and not ever let them return? Should we just execute everyone there? That makes no sense at all.

If his father had finished the job...or if Clinton had not ignored the problem (too busy with his intern) we would not have any of the problems there that we do now...and 9/11 would not have happened.

There is no support of the terrorists from democratic leaders, etc. You and Rush, et. al are making that up. Trying to claim that doesn't mean that it's true, Fint.

Fallujah should've been and remained secure. You don't need to remove citizens, in war, you need to police them and keep the area secure.

Edit: and Clinton did try many different things to secure America, but the republican congress wanted nothing to do with it......

Second Edit: And I highly doubt his trysts with Lewinsky made him "too busy" to do anything else...... Tell me, does fooling around with your wife take so much time you don't have time for your job? I don't know about you, but having sex doesn't take up that much time in a day so as to prevent someone from being able to work....

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by cool_chick
And there was so not "strong support" for Iraq.....that's so not true....

The media has saturated the public with lies about it; continuing unabated today. The media lied to the American people that Saddam had no connections to al qaeda. The media lied to the American people, offering that Bush made up the WMD intel (which the world agreed upon). The media has lied about Bush's intentions for the war. The media lies today about domestic surveillance.

It is no wonder the public has been apprehensive. When you have enough free advertising saying a product sucks and harms people, you have less of that product sold. It would be like Pepsi monopolizing the advertising agencies and spending 80% of their donated advertising budget on demonizing Coca-Cola...In time there is an effect.

[nostatic]

Vietnam stopped the spread of communism? Interesting...what political persuasion produces most of the goods the US consumes, and will own most of the US debt?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by cool_chick
That would be incorrect. If that were correct, there would be "influence of the public" of afghanistan, Iraq I, etc. But alas, there is not. And there was so not "strong support" for Iraq.....that's so not true....

In an Oct 2002 PEW Poll, 62% of Americans say they support military action to "end Saddam Hussein’s rule."

Originally posted by cool_chick
...Then why didn't Iraq I last years and years and years?

Iraq I - 400,000 troops
Iraq II - 180,000ish troops

hmmmmmmmmm...

Because it was totally different. That is like comparing Grenada to WW2. In the first Gulf War, we only drove Iraq out of Kuwait. We stopped short of invading Iraq and removing its leadership. We certainly did not occupy the country. It happened far too fast for the liberals to organize enough support to help Saddam.

Originally posted by cool_chick
...The real trend in America is lactually ack of accountability and finger-pointing....

Yes, that "finger-pointing" really helps a lot.

Originally posted by cool_chick
...There is no support of the terrorists from democratic leaders, etc. You and Rush, et. al are making that up. Trying to claim that doesn't mean that it's true, Fint...

Even other Democratic leaders disagree with that.

Originally posted by cool_chick
...Fallujah should've been and remained secure. You don't need to remove citizens, in war, you need to police them and keep the area secure...

So how exactly would you do that? If you have a solution, I am in the position to pass it on to those who could use it.

Originally posted by cool_chick
...Edit: and Clinton did try many different things to secure America, but the republican congress wanted nothing to do with it......

And what exactly was that?

Originally posted by cool_chick
...Second Edit: And I highly doubt his trysts with Lewinsky made him "too busy" to do anything else...... Tell me, does fooling around with your wife take so much time you don't have time for your job? I don't know about you, but having sex doesn't take up that much time in a day so as to prevent someone from being able to work....

CC, you need to upgrade to a conservative. It would change your viewpoint completely. Frankly, I could spend all day doing that. If Bill was half as capable as he seems to think he was...I image that it was not the 5-second drill either (except for maybe his unwelcomed sexual encounters). If there was a second woman (and apparently Bill had many) I suspect that I would not have time to go to work.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
Vietnam stopped the spread of communism? Interesting...what political persuasion produces most of the goods the US consumes, and will own most of the US debt?

If you are talking about China....Communism did not spread there after Vietnam. It was already communist.

[Moneyguy1]

Pardon me for asking..

Is the unified Vietnam considered Communist or not?

[cool_chick]

Because it was totally different. That is like comparing Grenada to WW2. In the first Gulf War, we only drove Iraq out of Kuwait. We stopped short of invading Iraq and removing its leadership. We certainly did not occupy the country. It happened far too fast for the liberals to organize enough support to help Saddam.

So it would seem that we would need less troops for driving Iraq out of Kuwait (smaller area, focused area...) than taking over a whole country like Iraq. So, based on what you're saying, we needed more than 400,000 troops.

And yes, Fint, we all can spend all day doing just that. All day. A day. A day here and there..... But no sexual affair is going to take up so much time that someone can't do their day job.....unless you're superman, Fint...

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Pardon me for asking..

Is the unified Vietnam considered Communist or not?

It is considered to be communist.