• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US will supply military weapons to the Syrian rebels.

That was done in 2006. There was no need to stay after that, and soon it will be under Islamic rule. It will be the same in Afghanistan. That's the similarity. Many Americans died between 2006 and now for no good reason.

Both governments should have been overthrown and then left alone to organize themselves with fewer influences from the stone age.. They can keep terrorizing, and being overthrown if necessary, until they get it right.

"Leading from behind" means you'll always finish no better than second.

Again, the question I was asked was if we won the war in Iraq. Since the was was to defeat Sadaams army, the answer is YES.
 
If they can get enough arms in Al Queda hands, they will increase the fear factor wherever they are. Now if you can peddle fear you'll sell lots more arms.. Yessir, it's just good business. War is good business and if business ain't good start more wars. Rocket science, eh?
 
Irrelevant to the debate we were having about whether the US military is effective at offense and won the war. Pay attention.

Not even relevant for that. Having no standard for what you call effective doesn't make it effective.
 
Not even relevant for that. Having no standard for what you call effective doesn't make it effective.

I already defined my standard. The purpose of the war was to defeat Sadaams army. Whether this was a smart or dumbass purpose is irrelevant to whether the purpose was achieved. Its pretty simple logic.
 
I already defined my standard. The purpose of the war was to defeat Sadaams army. Whether this was a smart or dumbass purpose is irrelevant to whether the purpose was achieved. Its pretty simple logic.

Hardly worth the cost and a poor us of the military, thus ineffective.
 
The goal in Iraq was to toppel the regime. We did that.

had that been the actual goal we would have left the theatre in a matter of days, NOT years
 
Again, the question I was asked was if we won the war in Iraq. Since the was was to defeat Sadaams army, the answer is YES.

Yes, I agree. But why hang around for another several years after the win? What was that all about?
 
Yes, I agree. But why hang around for another several years after the win? What was that all about?


That's how you use up armaments, vehicles, planes, beaucoup fuel, bullets, bombs, rockets, food, commissaries, tents, tires, dollars, etc. It's called feeding the Corporate Military/Industrial complex. Just keep watching Syria to see the game. We need a "Don't Feed The Corporate Military/Industrial Complex" program recognition software from NSA to eliminate this distortion. Oh well, most people don't believe it and are gonna have to smack their very own lying friggin' eyes, eh?
 
That's how you use up armaments, vehicles, planes, beaucoup fuel, bullets, bombs, rockets, food, commissaries, tents, tires, dollars, etc. It's called feeding the Corporate Military/Industrial complex. Just keep watching Syria to see the game. We need a "Don't Feed The Corporate Military/Industrial Complex" program recognition software from NSA to eliminate this distortion. Oh well, most people don't believe it and are gonna have to smack their very own lying friggin' eyes, eh?

Some never heard of it. ;)
 
Yes, I agree. But why hang around for another several years after the win? What was that all about?

$$$ for the cause (cronies that profit). Nation building is the expensive (but profitable?) part. When the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate against an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag tag (at best) army then you know we have a bad (or non-existant) battle plan. For each $200 enemy sniper or IED attack we respond with $1,000,000 (or so) in "defense" spending including bribing the locals to help us.
 
U.S. to increase military support to Syria rebels | Reuters

Just announced. The US has confirmed it has undeniable proof that Assad in fact used chemical weapons against his own people and, as a result, the US will begin supplying lethal military aid to the rebels for the first time since the war began 2 years ago.

About damn time.

Every time we do this it always backfires...

One of the few ideas both sides can agree on over there is the fact they both hate the US and western culture in general.

Nothing good can or will come of this.
 
had that been the actual goal we would have left the theatre in a matter of days, NOT years

The units that accomplished it did. We then took on a seperate goal of occupation, which also suceeded. We did not withdrawl under political pressure. We stayed until the country had an elected govt, and was stable. Then the Iraqi govt took over security. No, its not a perfect win. Neither was Germany where we still have troops.
 
Yes, I agree. But why hang around for another several years after the win? What was that all about?

I dont want to argue the Iraq war. I was only explaing how we didnt lose the war. Afghanistan is still in progress. So, the only loss the US has ever had is Vietnam, which again, was a political loss, not a military one. Solletica started this by saying "And the worst defense is a bad offense, the latter in which the US military has plenty of experience." There is simply no evidence that the US military has plenty of experience at bad offense. In fact its damn near undefeated.
 
$$$ for the cause (cronies that profit). Nation building is the expensive (but profitable?) part. When the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemate against an enemy with no air force, no navy and a rag tag (at best) army then you know we have a bad (or non-existant) battle plan. For each $200 enemy sniper or IED attack we respond with $1,000,000 (or so) in "defense" spending including bribing the locals to help us.

But we're still here, while they keep moving back. They are losing their state sponsors, hundreds of thousands are dead, their leaders are dead. Our culture moves forward, while theres continues to ruin their reputation. The fact that they can hold on so long and prick us once in a while is the only pro in their column.
 
But we're still here, while they keep moving back. They are losing their state sponsors, hundreds of thousands are dead, their leaders are dead. Our culture moves forward, while theres continues to ruin their reputation. The fact that they can hold on so long and prick us once in a while is the only pro in their column.

While enemy casualties (including civilians) in Afghanistan naturally exceed our own (including allied troops) they are far under 100,000 for the duration of the Afghanistan "war" - cite a source for your "hundreds of thousands" of deaths.
 
That's how you use up armaments, vehicles, planes, beaucoup fuel, bullets, bombs, rockets, food, commissaries, tents, tires, dollars, etc. It's called feeding the Corporate Military/Industrial complex. Just keep watching Syria to see the game. We need a "Don't Feed The Corporate Military/Industrial Complex" program recognition software from NSA to eliminate this distortion. Oh well, most people don't believe it and are gonna have to smack their very own lying friggin' eyes, eh?


I left the "obvious" out of this post and then realized it may not be "obvious" to readers who had not been in the military. When inventory "armaments, vehicles, planes, beaucoup fuel, bullets, bombs, rockets, food, commissaries, tents, tires, etc.," are used up by the military, replacements are ordered, generating continuing profits from the armaments manufacturers. This is demand in a supply/demand scenario. That is why wars are such popular and successful business ventures. That is why the $700 billion Military Offense budget exists. It's just good business. I don't think any company makes more money than those supplying fuel because everything runs on fuel. Ergo, Energy Corporations are the first cheerleaders for war. Who'd a thunk it, eh?
 
While enemy casualties (including civilians) in Afghanistan naturally exceed our own (including allied troops) they are far under 100,000 for the duration of the Afghanistan "war" - cite a source for your "hundreds of thousands" of deaths.

I was referring to the war on terror. I have no source, its a guess. Call it tens of thousands if you like. If youre measuring by body count, the US is WAY ahead.
 
I was referring to the war on terror. I have no source, its a guess. Call it tens of thousands if you like. If youre measuring by body count, the US is WAY ahead.

Perhaps, yet expending the lives of 4,000+ to avenge the lives of 3,000 9/11 victims is still a bad deal. Peharps one should look closely at the vast difference in monetary expediture, taking into account TSA (and its associated travel delays), paying an average of $1.7 million to each 9/11 victim's family, adding homeland security as well as the military direct (and indirect) costs to zap a few "terrorists" before they can do bad things over here. One must remember that 9/11 was caused by allowing 4-5 morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive commercial aircraft into buildings and that a "training camp" (or two) in Afghanistan was hardly crucial for carrying that out.

These Jihad morons have not been destroyed or even seriously reduced by our venturing into their prime recruiting grounds, in fact, the opposite is likely true - the "invasion" of their homelands by "infidels" actually aids in their recruiting efforts. Better to zap the Jihad "leaders" using intel, special ops and drones than to attempt to play nation builder in their chosen "safe zones" overseas.
 
Don't worry guys, I'm sure giving weapons to these terrorists freedom fighters will work out better than the last twenty times we tried exactly this sort of thing.
 
Perhaps, yet expending the lives of 4,000+ to avenge the lives of 3,000 9/11 victims is still a bad deal. Peharps one should look closely at the vast difference in monetary expediture, taking into account TSA (and its associated travel delays), paying an average of $1.7 million to each 9/11 victim's family, adding homeland security as well as the military direct (and indirect) costs to zap a few "terrorists" before they can do bad things over here. One must remember that 9/11 was caused by allowing 4-5 morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive commercial aircraft into buildings and that a "training camp" (or two) in Afghanistan was hardly crucial for carrying that out.

These Jihad morons have not been destroyed or even seriously reduced by our venturing into their prime recruiting grounds, in fact, the opposite is likely true - the "invasion" of their homelands by "infidels" actually aids in their recruiting efforts. Better to zap the Jihad "leaders" using intel, special ops and drones than to attempt to play nation builder in their chosen "safe zones" overseas.

Sure, but the point was, by any measure, we are winning. American life goes on much like it always has. Meanwhile the jihadists fall back and die. The middles east is slowly being converted to democracy.
 
The units that accomplished it did. We then took on a seperate goal of occupation, which also suceeded. We did not withdrawl under political pressure. We stayed until the country had an elected govt, and was stable. Then the Iraqi govt took over security. No, its not a perfect win. Neither was Germany where we still have troops.

then you admit you were wrong in your assessment of the nation's objective in iraq
it was not simply to overthrow saddam's regime
it was nation building
love it when a member's posts refute his own earlier arguments
 
I dont want to argue the Iraq war. I was only explaing how we didnt lose the war. Afghanistan is still in progress. So, the only loss the US has ever had is Vietnam, which again, was a political loss, not a military one. Solletica started this by saying "And the worst defense is a bad offense, the latter in which the US military has plenty of experience." There is simply no evidence that the US military has plenty of experience at bad offense. In fact its damn near undefeated.

Any loss America suffers is going to be a political loss. Americans defeat themselves at home first.

The lesson should be that you go in and destroy the government, just as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, and not waste any time about it. When you stay around too long, anything over over three months perhaps, many Americans will mobilize and eventually turn on each other. That's why I don't see the point in Syria, apart from not knowing who the bad guys really are.

History doesn't stop so it is not yet known what the outcomes will be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. But we should have learned that you move in quickly, remove the dictators in place, move out, and repeat until they learn to get along with their neighbors and respect the freedoms of the individual. Otherwise it just becomes a Whac-a-mole policy, which is what we have now.
 
I left the "obvious" out of this post and then realized it may not be "obvious" to readers who had not been in the military. When inventory "armaments, vehicles, planes, beaucoup fuel, bullets, bombs, rockets, food, commissaries, tents, tires, etc.," are used up by the military, replacements are ordered, generating continuing profits from the armaments manufacturers. This is demand in a supply/demand scenario. That is why wars are such popular and successful business ventures. That is why the $700 billion Military Offense budget exists. It's just good business. I don't think any company makes more money than those supplying fuel because everything runs on fuel. Ergo, Energy Corporations are the first cheerleaders for war. Who'd a thunk it, eh?

As a rule I don't care for conspiracy theories but this one just makes too damn much sense.
 
Perhaps, yet expending the lives of 4,000+ to avenge the lives of 3,000 9/11 victims is still a bad deal. Peharps one should look closely at the vast difference in monetary expediture, taking into account TSA (and its associated travel delays), paying an average of $1.7 million to each 9/11 victim's family, adding homeland security as well as the military direct (and indirect) costs to zap a few "terrorists" before they can do bad things over here. One must remember that 9/11 was caused by allowing 4-5 morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive commercial aircraft into buildings and that a "training camp" (or two) in Afghanistan was hardly crucial for carrying that out.

These Jihad morons have not been destroyed or even seriously reduced by our venturing into their prime recruiting grounds, in fact, the opposite is likely true - the "invasion" of their homelands by "infidels" actually aids in their recruiting efforts. Better to zap the Jihad "leaders" using intel, special ops and drones than to attempt to play nation builder in their chosen "safe zones" overseas.
It doesn't help that most of the l;eaders of the free world don';t even know what to call ths war or that they scuttled to a msque right after 9/11 and other atrocities. If you were a jihadis, who do you thin would be winnng?

They can afford to lose thousands of lives, they'll all be blessed by Allah anyway. Meanwhile those living in the western democracies have become so uncertain of their customs, their freedoms, their traditional way of life that they are uncertain of what they are fighting for any more. The America or Britain or France or Denmark that was? What it hopes to be in the future? Or what it is now?

They are focused and we are not. In fact our leaders don't even know what to call this war, only reminding us repeatedly that 'not all Muslims are terrorists". Trouble is that those who aren't are being severely intimidated by those who are. As are we.
 
Back
Top Bottom