America’s Dumbest War, Ever

Misterveritis said:

Please consider using the quote function. It is not very good but it is better than nothing.

Convince me that your points have merit.

Click to expand...

I won't always use the quote feature. You will just have to accept that. Nor will I always be willing to provide evidence to rather simple explanations of political or intellectual history.

FDR wasn't a socialist, but believed in expanding the role of government and modifying the relationship of the individual to the government. Not going anywhere near as far as a socialist would, but enough to address maladies within the system. As a result of the New Deal and subsequent legislation, the brief illusion of socialism in America faded quickly (I point to "It Didn't Happen Here" and "Amerian Exceptionalism" by Seymour Martin Lipset). Furthermore, because the Republican Party has not fought FDR since the 1950s (see the Eisenhower administration), with Ronald Reagan reaffirming his belief that FDR was a good President (See his letters), and the entire Republican Party defending the Welfare state that Roosevelt, and in many instances, what LBJ put into place, your insinuation that FDR=socialist would automatically implicate their own political ideology.

Manservitis is playing devils advocate.

Nobody could believe such BS.

S__t, Hannity only says it because hes paid to.:roll:

Fiddytree said:

I won't always use the quote feature. You will just have to accept that. Nor will I always be willing to provide evidence to rather simple explanations of political or intellectual history.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. In some cases I will just pass by your comments.

FDR wasn't a socialist, but believed in expanding the role of government and modifying the relationship of the individual to the government.

Click to expand...

LOL. Okay, where I say democratic socialist I could have said socialist lite. And from your very next statement it appears we agree.

Not going anywhere near as far as a socialist would, but enough to address maladies within the system. As a result of the New Deal and subsequent legislation, the brief illusion of socialism in America faded quickly (I point to "It Didn't Happen Here" and "Amerian Exceptionalism" by Seymour Martin Lipset).

Click to expand...

If it wasn't socialism and he wasn't socialist then why would his (non) socialist policies cause an anti-socialist backlash?

Furthermore, because the Republican Party has not fought FDR since the 1950s (see the Eisenhower administration), with Ronald Reagan reaffirming his belief that FDR was a good President (See his letters), and the entire Republican Party defending the Welfare state that Roosevelt, and in many instances, what LBJ put into place, your insinuation that FDR=socialist would automatically implicate their own political ideology.

Click to expand...

Oh the unexamined life...

Time gives one perspective. Not every fight need be fought by everybody at every time. Reagan defeated the Evil Empire before him and us. That was a very great achievement. It is up to us go roll back the socialism that FDR so successfully put into place. For that we have to change the hearts, first of the makers of wealth, and then as many as possible of the hearts of the takers of wealth.

Misterveritis said:

Okay, where I say democratic socialist I could have said socialist lite. And from your very next statement it appears we agree.

Click to expand...

Liberal.

If it wasn't socialism and he wasn't socialist then why would his (non) socialist policies cause an anti-socialist backlash?

Click to expand...

If you are presented with two polar opposite solutions, you might find people who go to the most acceptable course (which for many poorer people, immigrants, racial minorities, etc. was the Socialist inclination). By offering a third path, it ensured that the socialist claims of inevitable collapse/immorality of the capitalist system was not held to be true by most people. They liked what they got out of the liberal policies without having to step dramatically further into socialism. In essence, FDR modified the United States, which ensured that socialism's challenges would mostly fail.

It's pretty simple.

Not every fight need be fought by everybody at every time.

Click to expand...

You're giving your side a pass when they maintain the Welfare state. Their entire platform is the successful maintenance of the FDR/LBJ welfare state.

Reagan defeated the Evil Empire before him and us. That was a very great achievement.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the Soviet Union overruled his ability to focus on domestic social policy, when we know quite the opposite?

It is up to us go roll back the socialism that FDR so successfully put into place. For that we have to change the hearts, first of the makers of wealth, and then as many as possible of the hearts of the takers of wealth.

Click to expand...

Spare us the platitudes. Delve into History instead.

Misterveritis said:

Why do you believe it is pretend? He as much told us that he spent his formative years surrounded by Marxists, Communists, socialists, Progressives, radicals, and terrorists. Those are the people he is most comfortable with. Their doctrines are his doctrines.

Every time you try to pretend to be clever the Internet chuckles at your expense. Chuckles.

Click to expand...

I was hoping it was pretend for your sake. It seems like you don't know what a Marxist is. Perhaps you should learn?

Kane said:

Why should the U.S. lower/middle class subsidize the military industrial complex, national security state when the profits go primarily to multinationals and their stockholders, the 1%?

The military industrial complex controls your CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC and the NYT, LATimes, Wash. Post., and the news wire services AP/Reuters found on Drudge and Huffington.

That is not freedom.

Click to expand...

"Stockholders" being glossed over, natch.

OldWorldOrder said:

Oh it's ugly? Evil? I'm more Hobbesian about it.

Also, for total disclosure's sake- in case you want to say something and in retrospect put your foot in your mouth- I'm an 8 year Army veteran with two Iraq deployments and a rough one in Mindanao. Now I'm a DoD contractor and it pays well and I went on a third trip to Iraq last summer. You don't like the wars. Some people do. Trying to make a moralistic stand? Good luck. If you want to take a rational approach, understand that the US' high standard of living throughout the second half of the 20th century is due to war. Understand that your comfort was won via war.

Click to expand...

I'm also a veteran, Vietnam volunteer, and a lot smarter than when I was a youthful "blind patriot." I will attach a quote from one of my threads that addresses exactly the points you are making and their downside.

"The US is the World's Biggest War-Monger | This Can't Be Happening

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”(Dwight D. Eisenhower)"

I'm not a blind patriot. I'm not even a patriot. I just happen to understand international relations and how nations work in their best interests insofar as their capabilities will allow them to. The US' military might allows them to influence situations using it as a tool- something most nations can't do.

For example, cheap oil was the foundation of the US in the second half of the 20th century, and that foundation was established via influencing governments- often via war.

I don't know why you think someone would have to be a patriot- let alone a blind one- to see that.

OldWorldOrder said:

I'm not a blind patriot. I'm not even a patriot. I just happen to understand international relations and how nations work in their best interests insofar as their capabilities will allow them to. The US' military might allows them to influence situations using it as a tool- something most nations can't do.

For example, cheap oil was the foundation of the US in the second half of the 20th century, and that foundation was established via influencing governments- often via war.

I don't know why you think someone would have to be a patriot- let alone a blind one- to see that.

Click to expand...

This is amusing because you and I see the world, OIL, and wars the same. Where we differ is that you think that wars have benifitted us greatly, and I think they are ugly and evil. We will be paying the cost for all that OIL we have been able to use freely because of our militant efforts to control it worldwide. The downside besides chaos, destruction, mayhem, and death will be catastrophic Global Warming. Eisenhower's quote from my last reply presented the alternatives to war if the same monies went into local infrastructures and that remains unchanged. We live with a myopic short term view of a long term reality and that shall bite us. Not prophecy, just recognition of reality.

Well, sure, if everyone was nice there would be no war. As long as one person isn't, though, everyone needs to be prepared for violence. And that's the seed for everything you see. It's the nature of living things to compete for resources. Lions do it. Deer do it. Trees do it. Bacteria does it. Humans are no different. It's only a matter of finding that perfect balance of resources expended for resources garnered. Of course, no one can accurately make that calculation, so you have to guess.

I said, "If it wasn't socialism and he wasn't socialist then why would his (non) socialist policies cause an anti-socialist backlash?"

Fiddytree said:

If you are presented with two polar opposite solutions, you might find people who go to the most acceptable course (which for many poorer people, immigrants, racial minorities, etc. was the Socialist inclination). By offering a third path, it ensured that the socialist claims of inevitable collapse/immorality of the capitalist system was not held to be true by most people. They liked what they got out of the liberal policies without having to step dramatically further into socialism. In essence, FDR modified the United States, which ensured that socialism's challenges would mostly fail.

It's pretty simple.

Click to expand...

I see. Let me restate to make sure we share a common understanding. You believe the US was faced with two polar opposite choices, freedom to choose for ourselves, usually called free-market capitalism, or slavery under a socialist regime. But the all-wise, all powerful, Wizard of Roosevelt clevery discerned a third path, socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism. As a result of his cleverness the American people rejected socialism, which according to you, is something different than socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism. Is that correct?

By pushing socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism, he saved us from socialism?

Awesome.

I wrote,"And every mighty oak began as a small acorn.

FDR did what he could to advance democratic socialism. He prolonged the Depression with his policies. And yet the dumb masses kept voting him back into office. It seems that the one term Marxist is hoping to replicate FDR's achievement. Of course he did need to significantly increase the welfare rolls, increase misery by bankrupting coal companies, therefore increasing the cost of energy, and then give his supporters stuff. Obamaphone anybody?

To which, for reasons known only to you, you replied,

Kane said:

Why should the U.S. lower/middle class subsidize the military industrial complex, national security state when the profits go primarily to multinationals and their stockholders, the 1%?

The military industrial complex controls your CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC and the NYT, LATimes, Wash. Post., and the news wire services AP/Reuters found on Drudge and Huffington.

That is not freedom.

Click to expand...

This is why I choose not to respond to you. Your response had nothing to do with what I said. Nothing.

RabidAlpaca said:

I've said it once on here, and I'll say it again. This war is unwinnable, and we are wasting our time and resources.

Click to expand...

If the war against the Taliban and Al quada is unwinnable in Afghanistan what do you recommend? Shall we declare it a safe haven for terrorists?

What are the war's objectives? Why are we there? Why did the one term Marxist delcare a departure timetable? Is it unwinnable with today's "leadership" in the White House and in the field? Or is it unwinnable no matter what the political objectives are and no matter who is "in charge".

Was WWII unwinnable? Until near the end, in 1944, it seemed like it.

Fiddytree said:

Only to those who wish to be simple-minded about it.

Click to expand...

That is my approach. I see the thing for what it is. You described how Roosevelt changed the relationship between the citizen and the government. He keep the nation impoverished and gave his ever growing constituent groups "stuff". He sowed a very large number of socialist seeds.

It is quite constrained in output and in intentions in comparison with the Democratic Socialists.

Click to expand...

LOL. You are like many others who cannot connect the dots until after you are enslaved. He pushed socialism-as-far-as-he-could-push-it. And you rightly said in an earlier post that there was a backlash against socialism. You stumbled across a profound truth. But like many others who do you picked yourself up, brushed the truth off your clothing, then continued on with your life as if nothing happened.

FDR's actions nullified the impact of the socialists and democratic socialists for decades. The movement was astoundingly crushed.

Click to expand...

Which only makes sense if your earlier statement that there was a backlash is correct. But the seeds Roosevelt planted are the weeds that must be pulled or burned.

spud_meister said:

So how do you know he chose to be a Marxist instead of a socialist or progressive?

Click to expand...

Didn't I just answer this? One can never know. But one can discern the evidence. Do you prefer I use the shortcut phrase "one term Marxist" or would you rather see "one term Marxist, Communist, socialist, Progressive, radical, terrorist"? I agree the latter is more precise. The former is simpler and captures the essential problem that is Barrack Hussein Obama.

OldWorldOrder said:

I was hoping it was pretend for your sake. It seems like you don't know what a Marxist is. Perhaps you should learn?

Click to expand...

I think the difference between us is as simple as the difference between one able to recognize the mightly oak in the acorn as opposed to needing the oak to be at its full height before recognizing it. There is no shame in it. Most people are unable to discern the beginnings of things. I do not believe this can be learned. One can see the beginnings or one cannot. It may be a failure of imagination. I have given this thought for a very long time. As an intelligence officer things were clear to me that others were unable to discern. For me it was clear. It was similar to looking at an incomplete mosaic and seeing the completed picture. Others were stuck looking at small, individual pieces of broken glass.

So you don't know what a Marxist is. Okay.

OldWorldOrder said:

So you don't know what a Marxist is. Okay.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps I am right in my assessment of you.

Obama knows what a Marxist is. He grew up surrounded by Marxists, Communists, socialists, Progressives, radicals and terrorists. He self selected to be around those people when he was old enough to choose.

It is true that I am a novice when it comes to Marxism. I have read ony three of Radical Karl's popular writings. He was prolific. His collected writings fill 50 volumes. In my opinion Radical Karl's most significant contributions to Radical Barrack's philosophy is his use of class warfare, wealth redistribution, a steeply progressive income tax, and his steady dictatorshipe of the proles (the public sector unions).

It's fine that you don't know, not everyone can know everything. I just don't know why you'd use a word that you don't know the meaning of. That's verisimilar (sorry, don't know what 'verisimilar' means, I hope it makes sense in this context).

OldWorldOrder said:

It's fine that you don't know, not everyone can know everything. I just don't know why you'd use a word that you don't know the meaning of. That's verisimilar (sorry, don't know what 'verisimilar' means, I hope it makes sense in this context).

Click to expand...

Don't worry your pretty head about it. I will do the heavy lifting for you.

Hopefully we will defeat the one term Marxist in another month and be done with him.

You dropped that dumb **** on your foot.

Misterveritis said:

If the war against the Taliban and Al quada is unwinnable in Afghanistan what do you recommend?

Click to expand...

I recommend not being there, not shedding American blood, and not wasting American tax dollars.

Misterveritis said:

Shall we declare it a safe haven for terrorists?

Click to expand...

I say we analyze the reasons the terrorists attack us in the first place. It probably has something to do with decades of imperialism in the middle east. We can't put a soldier on every mountaintop and every street corner to ensure there are no safe-havens for terrorism. Instead we can fight the fundamental causes of it.

Misterveritis said:

What are the war's objectives? Why are we there?

Click to expand...

The official statement is to bring freedom to the people of afghanistan, and or as revenge for 9/11. Neither of which make any sense, nor are actually being accomplished.

Misterveritis said:

Why did the one term Marxist delcare a departure timetable?

Click to expand...

Because it makes no sense for us to be there. The one term "marxist" president is about to become a two-term president for supporting these very ideas. The majority of Americans have lost their taste for war, and our representatives should embody that.

Misterveritis said:

Is it unwinnable with today's "leadership" in the White House and in the field? Or is it unwinnable no matter what the political objectives are and no matter who is "in charge".

Click to expand...

We're trying to fight a gorilla war against an ideology in a heavily mountainous country where the guerillas have the support of the locals. If history has taught us anything, it's that such a situation is unwinnable.

Misterveritis said:

Was WWII unwinnable? Until near the end, in 1944, it seemed like it.

Click to expand...

WWII was a straight forward combat war for territory, not a guerilla war against an ideology without the support of the locals.
One of the many reasons Hitler didn't invade Switzerland, even though he really wanted to, was because of the insanely difficult nature of fighting such a fight.

RabidAlpaca said:

I recommend not being there, not shedding American blood, and not wasting American tax dollars.

Click to expand...

So, declare Afghanistan is once again a safe-haven for terrorists. That is one approach. How did it work the last time?

I say we analyze the reasons the terrorists attack us in the first place. It probably has something to do with decades of imperialism in the middle east. We can't put a soldier on every mountaintop and every street corner to ensure there are no safe-havens for terrorism. Instead we can fight the fundamental causes of it.

Click to expand...

Could it be Islam is the reason? How do we fight that fundamental cause of terrorism?

The official statement is to bring freedom to the people of afghanistan, and or as revenge for 9/11. Neither of which make any sense, nor are actually being accomplished.

Click to expand...

Or more likely it is to deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for Al Quada and the Taliban. Would it help if the Obama Administration actually let the military fight?

Because it makes no sense for us to be there. The one term "marxist" president is about to become a two-term president for supporting these very ideas. The majority of Americans have lost their taste for war, and our representatives should embody that.

Click to expand...

If you are correct that the political objective for the war in Afghanistan is to bring the people freedom then you are right. If the objective is to deny safe haven then you are not right. Americans have always loved being on the winning side. By denying the possibility of winning in Afghanistan of course our will has flagged. So bring all the forces home. Do it today. There is no need to wait.

We're trying to fight a gorilla war against an ideology in a heavily mountainous country where the guerillas have the support of the locals. If history has taught us anything, it's that such a situation is unwinnable.

Click to expand...

Except that the Obama Administration rules of engagement means we are not fighting.
You have learned the wrong lesson from the history you have been exposed to. A better lesson is to identify the right political objective, fit the strategy to the objective, match the means to the strategy and then persist.

It is clear that we are unclear on the political objective. It is clear that we are unclear on the strategy. It is clear that we are unclear on the means. And the one term Marxist has already told our enemies that we are going to withdraw on a provided date.

WWII was a straight forward combat war for territory, not a guerilla war against an ideology without the support of the locals.

Click to expand...

WWII was many things in many places. It was not so simple nor straightforward as you think. I chose it because of its enormous complexity, as well as the belief among many that it was unwinnable.

Misterveritis said:

So, declare Afghanistan is once again a safe-haven for terrorists. That is one approach. How did it work the last time?

Click to expand...

We've never once declared it a safe haven for terrorists. We put our dirty fingers into training the taliban to fight the russians, then left right after.

Apparently you didn't listen to a word I said earlier. You simply can't put soldiers on every mountaintop and every street corner in the world. Team America World Police is a dangerous and bloody ideology to hold.

Misterveritis said:

Could it be Islam is the reason? How do we fight that fundamental cause of terrorism?

Click to expand...

Yes, it probably has nothing to do with dozens of american military bases scattered across the middle east, the supporting of oil cartels, invading numerous nations, and bombing of thousands of citizens.

I'm sure they're all just fired up from reading their holy book. If we were to sit at home and mind our business, they'd be just blowin' us up left and right, eh?

Tell me how many terrorist attacks Switzerland has had.

Misterveritis said:

Or more likely it is to deny Afghanistan as a safe haven for Al Quada and the Taliban. Would it help if the Obama Administration actually let the military fight?

Click to expand...

The rules of engagement have nothing to do with it. We were losing this from the beginning. I was in afghanistan back when it was still the wild west. When you could level a village with JDAMs because of one enemy combatant in it. You act like when Obama came into office was the turning point where an otherwise successful campaign started going down the drain.

If the great warlord Emperor Bush couldn't do it, no amount of ROE changes will help it.

Misterveritis said:

If you are correct that the political objective for the war in Afghanistan is to bring the people freedom then you are right. If the objective is to deny safe haven then you are not right. Americans have always loved being on the winning side. By denying the possibility of winning in Afghanistan of course our will has flagged. So bring all the forces home. Do it today. There is no need to wait.

Click to expand...

Yes, americans are only sick of war because they don't believe we can win, not because it's been going on for ELEVEN years.

If you're honestly suggesting bringing home the troops today, I agree 100%. What a refreshing idea.

Misterveritis said:

Except that the Obama Administration rules of engagement means we are not fighting.
You have learned the wrong lesson from the history you have been exposed to. A better lesson is to identify the right political objective, fit the strategy to the objective, match the means to the strategy and then persist.

It is clear that we are unclear on the political objective. It is clear that we are unclear on the strategy. It is clear that we are unclear on the means. And the one term Marxist has already told our enemies that we are going to withdraw on a provided date.

Click to expand...

What I've learned from history is two-fold:
- Afghanistan is an unconquerable nation. Ask Alexander, ask the Soviets, ask Genghis Khan, and take a look at our current situation.
- For any campaign, ensure that the juice is worth the squeeze. In this situation by juice I mean American blood, and by squeeze I mean not a god damn thing.

Misterveritis said:

WWII was many things in many places. It was not so simple nor straightforward as you think. I chose it because of its enormous complexity, as well as the belief among many that it was unwinnable.

Click to expand...

No s***. I never claimed it was simple or straight forward. What I stated is that it is an entirely different type of warfare and is in this situation completely unrelated.

but just look how well having invaded Afganistan turned out for the Soviets.

And for all of the other nations and empires that invaded over the centuries.

Don't we want a part of that success?