Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

The Pub

5 Trillion Dollars

Off topic. Home for jokes and other misc. stuff.
Keep it reasonable.

by blackwidow » Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:18 am

the current estimation on the Costs of that easy problem solving idea called WAR.

https://www.brown.edu/web/documents/nos ... sofWar.pdf
Bombs are hugs.jpg
Bombs are hugs.jpg (31.2 KiB) Viewed 6798 times





http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016 ... nt=event25
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by Sam » Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:26 am

The conflicts cost so much because we don't treat them as actual wars. We are not in a war and haven't been in a war since Viet Nam. The second half of the Viet Nam war marked the beginning of collateral damage avoidance at all costs......which costs everyone much more money. Why? Because there is no horror, no real reason for a conflict to end. Bush Sr. had it semi-right in the first Gulf conflict. Quick and dirty.....shock and awe....but only after we warned everyone to get out of Baghdad. Bush 2 has us in a 15 year comfortable situation which has ultimately resulted in the fight against ISIS vs. the fight against Hussein. Many American lives have been lost senselessly. Obama, in turn, has continued the conflict while allowing ISIS to flourish solely because of the "need" to virtually eliminate collateral damage.

If you want to cut the cost of war......engage in war. Kill everybody that is direct proximity with the enemy and don't apologize. They will want to negotiate terms immediately.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by blackwidow » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:25 pm

That is a horrible response. and entirely inaccurate,
War is a RACKET it is the oldest racket in the book as was written by General Smedley Butler in 1935
Take the profit out of war and it will end war.
The real reasons behind ALL WARS have not changed.

Take the profits away from the armaments industry and conscript their services for the cause right along with the men and women who are asked to serve, and lets see how many wars can be avoided?

THE MAJORITY do not want war and need to be convinced to go to war.
They need to be convinced that people they know nothing about are their enemy.
Thats what good propaganda does.
WAR IS A RACKET!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by blackwidow » Mon Oct 24, 2016 2:33 pm

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
~Gen S.M. Butler USMC
1933 speech
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
User avatar
blackwidow
 
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: riding a horse so high your complaints just sound like ant farts to me.

by Sam » Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:46 am

Mark Twain said, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

Your responses show a total lack of knowledge when it comes to this subject.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

by jonriv » Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:56 pm

blackwidow wrote:That is a horrible response. and entirely inaccurate,
War is a RACKET it is the oldest racket in the book as was written by General Smedley Butler in 1935
Take the profit out of war and it will end war.
The real reasons behind ALL WARS have not changed.

Take the profits away from the armaments industry and conscript their services for the cause right along with the men and women who are asked to serve, and lets see how many wars can be avoided?

THE MAJORITY do not want war and need to be convinced to go to war.
They need to be convinced that people they know nothing about are their enemy.
Thats what good propaganda does.
WAR IS A RACKET!


Did you read the Brown.edu document you posted? The general premise and what most economists agree is that war is bad for business. It destroys economies and capital. How can it then be a "racket" by business. Most businesses and business people are against war because it is bad for business War sucks-no sh*t, it is the final political option

Also- military expenditures in the US are not even close to what they were during the Cold War. Your military-industrial complex rhetoric is as outdated as your costume

Sam- as a retired soldier and military soldier. Collateral damage is not helpful in military operations. Needlessly killing civilians and property does not help win, it actually hardens the oppositions resolve and anger(see the Battle of Britain). The issue in the second gulf war(as far as execution goes) is that we went in with too few troops and tried to do it on the cheap- which as you pointed out cost us more

Going to war should never be taken lightly. The expenses of personnel and treasure is immense, but many times doing nothing can cost you even more

I would love to here some honest and soulful thoughts of your own BW. Anyone can flail out endless links. Reading your posts is like reading a bibliography without there being an actual paper or thesis. All research, but no real substance or thought
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by PDad » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:16 pm

jonriv wrote:The issue in the second gulf war(as far as execution goes) is that we went in with too few troops and tried to do it on the cheap- which as you pointed out cost us more

We had more than enough to win the war. The problem was not having a viable plan for afterward compounded by de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi military. I remember being with people that were happy after Baghdad fell and me feeling like the messy part was just beginning.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by jonriv » Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:40 pm

PDad wrote:
jonriv wrote:The issue in the second gulf war(as far as execution goes) is that we went in with too few troops and tried to do it on the cheap- which as you pointed out cost us more

We had more than enough to win the war. The problem was not having a viable plan for afterward compounded by de-Baathification and disbanding the Iraqi military. I remember being with people that were happy after Baghdad fell and me feeling like the messy part was just beginning.



We had enough troops to conquer Iraq and defeat it's military- we were way short in the amount needed to hold territory, occupy territory and maintain order. We fell way short of our obligations on the Geneva Convention as an Occupying power and blew a great opportunity of making Iraq a showpiece. Your insights of de-baathification and disbanding the Iraqui Army are right on. Iraq was (despite Sadaam) a moderate, secular Arab state with a thriving middle class-what could have been. Our inability to create security and quick return to normality allowed for old rivalries(shia, sunnies and Kurds) to re-emerge. lack of security and disbandment of the army led to insurgencies--You would think we would have learned from our experiences in Germay, Japan and Italy(all former enemies that are now key allies)
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by PDad » Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:53 pm

jonriv wrote:We had enough troops to conquer Iraq and defeat it's military- we were way short in the amount needed to hold territory, occupy territory and maintain order. We fell way short of our obligations on the Geneva Convention as an Occupying power and blew a great opportunity of making Iraq a showpiece. Your insights of de-baathification and disbanding the Iraqui Army are right on. Iraq was (despite Sadaam) a moderate, secular Arab state with a thriving middle class-what could have been. Our inability to create security and quick return to normality allowed for old rivalries(shia, sunnies and Kurds) to re-emerge. lack of security and disbandment of the army led to insurgencies--You would think we would have learned from our experiences in Germay, Japan and Italy(all former enemies that are now key allies)

Iraqis didn't put up much of a fight to defend the Husseins because they expected life would go on after their regime was toppled. De-Baathification tossed 50,000 out of their jobs and disbanding the army resulted in the unemployment and loss of pensions for another 500k. Sunni families were reliant on that income, so they rebelled and attacked us. Putting down that insurgency required a lot more forces than just keeping the peace between the different factions.

Membership in the Nazi Party was a requirement for many civilian jobs that kept things running in Germany, so many/most of the members joined out of necessity rather than belief. Our elders recognized that, so they selectively only removed the fanatics and loyalists rather than everyone. Same thing in Iraq with the Baath Party, however we didn't use the same discretion.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by Sam » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:14 am

Jonriv,

My old man was a retired Marine with a tour in Vietnam Nam and I have worked for the Navy and Marine Corps for over 30 years.

My point was that, sans collateral damage, neither side has a reason to stop a conflict. The mere length of these recent conflicts is imperial evidence that this is so.

WWII might still be going on if we had not employed nuclear devices, killing thousands of people. The Japanese are now allies.

In the Middle East, they hate us anyway. The BS about collateral damage helping the enemy recruit is laughable. These people understand one thing: Power and brutality. That's how Saddam Hussein Iraq for so long despite his people being in the minority.

You see what happened when they took control of Iraq after we deposed Hussein. They ran away like little children when confronted by a tiny ISIS threat and gave them all the weaponry WE gave to them. Who cares if they hate us? They are weak.

There must be horror in order to end wars and we are not providing ANY horror.
Run your mouth when I'm not around
Its easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
- Pantera, Walk
User avatar
Sam
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Norco, California

Next

Return to The Pub