Is Afghanistan worth it?

[greyman]

No, now they teach that it is "war profiteering" to sell GPS guided munitions kits for dumb iron bombs. How dare them make money reducing collateral damage.

Your argument is disingenuous. I am against war profiteering, i.e. making war for wars sake. I am not against making war when it is called for. If someone attacked our homeland, and/or threatened our sovereignty as a nation I would pull out all the stops - firebombing, guided munitions kits, napalm, etc etc...whatever it took.

Where I draw the line is doing all of the above because there's an industry in it...because it's being done to make a buck.

I'm saying war is a hellish, ruthless undertaking...and if we're gonna bring hell-fire, and be ruthless, it better be because we HAVE to, not because we simply want to.

[Guest Derek L]

Your argument is disingenuous. I am against war profiteering, i.e. making war for wars sake. I am not against making war when it is called for. If someone attacked our homeland, and/or threatened our sovereignty as a nation I would pull out all the stops - firebombing, guided munitions kits, napalm, etc etc...whatever it took.

Where I draw the line is doing all of the above because there's an industry in it...because it's being done to make a buck.

I'm saying war is a hellish, ruthless undertaking...and if we're gonna bring hell-fire, and be ruthless, it better be because we HAVE to, not because we simply want to.

You’re somewhat off the mark, war profiteering is making money off a war………The industrial military complex makes it’s money delivering the tools of war…….How they’re used is a political decision, not one of industries making.

[greyman]

How much "blowback" has there been from the US army horse cavalry's handling of the plains Indians?

This is also disingenuous because it is comparing the war with the plains Indians with war in the Middle East.

The former was a war to take over, to conquer, to own the land.

The latter is a police action, an exercise in installing sympathetic puppets.

They are not the same thing.

If the idea was to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and colonize them as new territories for the US or Canada, then yes, you go until the people are either wiped out or conquered - and in that case there's not much of a possibility for blowback.

BUT, if you go in with unclear mandates, and set up a presence in the area, but half-ass it - then yes, you wind up leaving their population largely intact, building resentment in the region with your presence on their land...and accordingly you get blowback.

People who are completely overwhelmed or dead can't hit back.

[Guest Derek L]

This is also disingenuous because it is comparing the war with the plains Indians with war in the Middle East.

The former was a war to take over, to conquer, to own the land.

The latter is a police action, an exercise in installing sympathetic puppets.

They are not the same thing.

If the idea was to go into Iraq or Afghanistan and colonize them as new territories for the US or Canada, then yes, you go until the people are either wiped out or conquered - and in that case there's not much of a possibility for blowback.

BUT, if you go in with unclear mandates, and set up a presence in the area, but half-ass it - then yes, you wind up leaving their population largely intact, building resentment in the region with your presence on their land...and accordingly you get blowback.

People who are completely overwhelmed or dead can't hit back.

You’re blurring the strategic and tactical lines of said conflicts………apples and oranges

[greyman]

You’re somewhat off the mark, war profiteering is making money off a war………The industrial military complex makes it’s money delivering the tools of war…….How they’re used is a political decision, not one of industries making.

I would agree with you completely, if the political was separate from industry, but we both know that's not how it is.

[greyman]

You’re blurring the strategic and tactical lines of said conflicts………apples and oranges

They may be apples and oranges, in which case...why did you use them as comparisons?

[Guest Derek L]

I would agree with you completely, if the political was separate from industry, but we both know that's not how it is.

I know (first hand) how it exactly is………A Government sets a requirement, industry fulfills it………Lockheed has never started a war, but their products have been used by combatants of both sides of numerous conflicts.

[Guest Derek L]

They may be apples and oranges, in which case...why did you use them as comparisons?

The strategic level is one of politics and can be accomplished under any “ism” banner you wish……..The tactical level is the carrying out of said political objectives.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your argument is disingenuous. I am against war profiteering, i.e. making war for wars sake. I am not against making war when it is called for.

And of course, you are more qualified to know the difference, right?

If someone attacked our homeland, and/or threatened our sovereignty as a nation I would pull out all the stops - firebombing, guided munitions kits, napalm, etc etc...whatever it took.

And who would have made these uber weapons for you?

Where I draw the line is doing all of the above because there's an industry in it...because it's being done to make a buck.

Many things are done to make a buck. Why single out "profiteers". More people are killed by automobiles than bombs.

I'm saying war is a hellish, ruthless undertaking...and if we're gonna bring hell-fire, and be ruthless, it better be because we HAVE to, not because we simply want to.

No, you have it backwards....gotta want to before circumstances require that you HAVE to.

[greyman]

I know (first hand) how it exactly is………A Government sets a requirement, industry fulfills it………Lockheed has never started a war, but their products have been used by combatants of both sides of numerous conflicts.

Government and industry works in collusion to make each other rich. The board room and the political office is a revolving door.

Technically speaking, government starts a war, sure...but government is influenced by industry lobbyists, and is also full of people who worked in the same industries that profit off the decisions they make.

[greyman]

The strategic level is one of politics and can be accomplished under any “ism” banner you wish……..The tactical level is the carrying out of said political objectives.

You have to take into account where "political objectives" come from.

[Guest Derek L]

Government and industry works in collusion to make each other rich. The board room and the political office is a revolving door.

Technically speaking, government starts a war, sure...but government is influenced by industry lobbyists, and is also full of people who worked in the same industries that profit off the decisions they make.

So were turning to tin-foil conspiracies? Does Dassault’s recent “rumoured” 11 billion dollar sale of Rafale fighters to India demonstrate a French desire to control India’s foreign and domestic policies?

[greyman]

And of course, you are more qualified to know the difference, right?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between attacking and defending.

And who would have made these uber weapons for you?

Industry obviously, but the difference is legitimacy.

Many things are done to make a buck. Why single out "profiteers". More people are killed by automobiles than bombs.

Sure, we could approach the world with your broad brushes, but how much sense would that make?

Your automobile/bomb comparison is disingenuous.

No, you have it backwards....gotta want to before circumstances require that you HAVE to.

I prefer English, thanks.

[greyman]

So were turning to tin-foil conspiracies? Does Dassault’s recent “rumoured” 11 billion dollar sale of Rafale fighters to India demonstrate a French desire to control India’s foreign and domestic policies?

Do lobbyists exist?

[Guest Derek L]

Do lobbyists exist?

So that's a no?

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the difference between attacking and defending.

The best defense is a strong offense. The difference is irrelevant when the bubble goes up. St. Augustine does not apply to the real world.

Industry obviously, but the difference is legitimacy.

Oh, and just how is "industry" suppose to turn on a dime and make all those uber weapons for you quickly enough to morally fight back and repel The Hun from your homeland?

Sure, we could approach the world with your broad brushes, but how much sense would that make?

The point was made to demonstrate an equally absurd condemnation of all "war profiteering".

I prefer English, thanks.

Oh great..the world has certainly had fewer wars because of everything "English".

[greyman]

So that's a no?

So that's a yes?

[Guest Derek L]

So that's a yes?

So were turning to tin-foil conspiracies? Does Dassault’s recent “rumoured” 11 billion dollar sale of Rafale fighters to India demonstrate a French desire to control India’s foreign and domestic policies?

Perhaps I’ll rephrase the question……..Do lobbyists representing Dassault, a French company, wish to control India’s foreign and domestic policies?

[greyman]

The best defense is a strong offense. The difference is irrelevant when the bubble goes up. St. Augustine does not apply to the real world.

The best defense is a strong defense.

Oh, and just how is "industry" suppose to turn on a dime and make all those uber weapons for you quickly enough to morally fight back and repel The Hun from your homeland?

Industry could pump out weapons pretty quick when called upon.

The point was made to demonstrate an equally absurd condemnation of all "war profiteering".

War profiteering is absurd.

Oh great..the world has certainly had fewer wars because of everything "English".

Echo chamber feeding.

[greyman]

Perhaps I’ll rephrase the question……..Do lobbyists representing Dassault, a French company, wish to control India’s foreign and domestic policies?

So we've established you agree lobbyists exist.

Why do you think that is?

[Guest Derek L]

The best defense is a strong defense.

A static defence can always be breached…….from castles to remote Pacific Islands.

Industry could pump out weapons pretty quick when called upon.

No it takes years to develop most modern military equipment…….

[bush_cheney2004]

The best defense is a strong defense.

I don't think you know the difference, starting with "battleships".

Industry could pump out weapons pretty quick when called upon.

Too late...you only have three weeks.

War profiteering is absurd.

Absurdly profitable?

Echo chamber feeding.

Swingline snickers action plan.

[Guest Derek L]

So we've established you agree lobbyists exist.

Why do you think that is?

To sell their product

So what about India, France and Dassault's lobbyists?

[greyman]

A static defence can always be breached…….from castles to remote Pacific Islands.

Who said anything about static?

No it takes years to develop most modern military equipment…….

Your point?

[greyman]

I don't think you know the difference, starting with "battleships".

Defending is what you do when under attack.

Attacking is what you do when you're attacking.

Where's my cookie?

Too late...you only have three weeks.

Pessimism.

Absurdly profitable?

No doubt.