Bounty on US Troops....

[Revoltingest]

It is a little suspicious. It says a lot about your daily life and what you spend your days doing. I know a woman wouldn't put up with that, lmao.

You know a woman?
Whooda thunk it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In a world suffering devastation of most of our competition, we did well.
But our latest wars aren't that way. We attack countries who don't
compete economically with us.

Would you say that we should destroy other first world economies
so that they provide markets, but not competition? Of course not.

You've still made no case for the MIC controlling government in order
to keep us at war. You've made no connection between leaders &
companies. It's a completely unsupported conspiracy theory.
It's much like the the "deep state" conspiracy theory Trump claims,
ie, an excuse to avoid responsibility for one's own decisions & acts.
If voters really want less war, they should send the hawks packing.
But they don't.

The arms industry could not support itself with out wars and threats of war.
It is one of the largest employers and generator of profit that there is.
It supports man tiers of companies and employment
It is now a vital component of American society.
I do not support conspiracy theories. but I do believe that most businesses are run on the principal of self interest.
One of the surest ways to make money is to be a link in the chain of the war industry.
Government must by their nature reflect the desires and interests. of their electorate.
The concentration of self interest, of such a large industry, has a profound influence on both peoples opinions and government policy.

Pacifism is as dirty a word, as terrorism or communism.

The middle east has been an arms sales bonanza, all countries including Saudi Arabia have spent fortunes both supplying the enemies of their enemies, and for their own defence systems. Soon America will start taking a greater interest in Africa, mainly because China have stolen a considerable head start, financing and supporting massive infrastructure projects. and locking them into their new technology.
When it comes to China, America will from now on always be playing catch up. China put its long term plans in place decades ago, they are already bearing fruit.
America's political system, by it nature and terms of office, are incapable of long term planning.

 

[tytlyf]

You know a woman?
Whooda thunk it.

I guess one of the downsides of the chosen profession is a single life?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm in a generous mood today giving you posts towards your total. Care to share why you have the most posts on Religiousforums? By a large margin? Suspicious?

Are you suggesting that @Revoltingest is a BOT.............

 

[tytlyf]

Are you suggesting that @Revoltingest is a BOT.............

No, just a paid poster here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No, just a paid poster here.

And who would pay a Libertarian to do anything? and for what purpose?

 

[Revoltingest]

The arms industry could not support itself with out wars and threats of war.

No disagreement here.

It is one of the largest employers and generator of profit that there is.
It supports man tiers of companies and employment
It is now a vital component of American society.

Yes, and.....

I do not support conspiracy theories. but I do believe that most businesses are run on the principal of self interest.
One of the surest ways to make money is to be a link in the chain of the war industry.
Government must by their nature reflect the desires and interests. of their electorate.
The concentration of self interest, of such a large industry, has a profound influence on both peoples opinions and government policy.

And yet, with this claimed "profound influence", you can provide no concrete
evidence of the claimed conspiracy by business to send Ameristan to war.

Pacifism is as dirty a word, as terrorism or communism.

True dat.....liberals & conservatives alike loathe pacifism.
Both want to play policeman to the world.
But how is it that you blame business for the voters' choice
to elect hawks to lead the country into repeated wars?

The middle east has been an arms sales bonanza, all countries including Saudi Arabia have spent fortunes both supplying the enemies of their enemies, and for their own defence systems. Soon America will start taking a greater interest in Africa, mainly because China have stolen a considerable head start, financing and supporting massive infrastructure projects. and locking them into their new technology.
When it comes to China, America will from now on always be playing catch up. China put its long term plans in place decades ago, they are already bearing fruit.
America's political system, by it nature and terms of office, are incapable of long term planning.

You're still not making an argument to justify the MIC conspiracy.
At least my theory that voters drive wars has a cogent argument
backed up by evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

And who would pay a Libertarian to do anything? and for what purpose?

Shhhhhh!
Don't ruin my plot to make him jealous of my riches earned off RF.

 

[tytlyf]

And who would pay a Libertarian to do anything? and for what purpose?

Sway political opinion. Remind users of rules. Try to keep everything clean. Opinions designed to distract. Rudderless ship. Middle of the road.

The Kochs are notorious "Libertarians" too. Check out the State Policy Network and learn what RW think tanks are really up to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you suggesting that @Revoltingest is a BOT.............

Accusing me of being artificial intelligence is still an accusation of intelligence.
I'm OK with that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It seems that Russia has been offering -- and paying -- a bounty for the killing of US soldiers in Afghanistan. More than that, it appears that the President was made aware of it months ago and decided the best thing to do was -------- NOTHING.

I'll link to a Guardian article, but I confess I have not had time to do a deep dive and really understand who is supposed to have done or known, what or when. But it doesn't look goodl

Rachel Maddow has something to say on the subject as well.

Any comment?

I'm glad he's doing nothing. The number one priority must always be to avoid risking a nuclear war. EVERYTHING else is secondary.

 

[Heyo]

Yes. I recall great interest in saving Qatar from Iraq, stopping godless commies
in Vietnam, protecting Israel from Iran, & exacting vengeance in Afghanistan.

Who in the military industrial complex (MIC) forced Kennedy, Johnson,
Reagan, Obama, & both Bushes to start or continue the failed wars?
When I worked in the MIC, my employers sure seemed to lack power.
But there is a clear connection between waging war & re-election.

We lost in Vietnam. We had a stalemate enduring to this day in Korea.
We didn't finish the job the 1st time in Iraq. We lost our proxy war
against Iran. And did we really win in Afghanistan?
So to answer your question.....the other guy usually wins.

The only advertising I see regarding defense & war is by the US Army & Marines.
I've never even seen an ad by my old employer, Northrop.
US fed gov loves to portray the glory & excitement of going into battle.

Who got the most votes in the last Prez election?
Old "Blood & Guts Hillary", who had a hawkish record
in the Senate & as Obama's Secretary Of State.

I'm not so sure as Saagar about the Bounty even be true, and it hasn't to be for the purpose:

 

[Heyo]

And yet, with this claimed "profound influence", you can provide no concrete
evidence of the claimed conspiracy by business to send Ameristan to war.

What about who is financing campaigns, who owns the media and the connections of the MIC to the government?
I give you that the US population is probably the most violent and war loving on earth on average but even with that in mind I think that if they could vote on wars directly, most of the last ones wouldn't have happened or would have ended by now. Trump didn't lose to Clinton because of his promise to "bring back the troops", in fact, it might have helped him get the presidency. (And not delivering might help him lose the next time.)
Your countrymen and women are bad but they aren't as bad as you make them.

 

[Revoltingest]

What about who is financing campaigns, who owns the media and the connections of the MIC to the government?

It's an excellent question.
But the conspiracy theorists have never answered it to show
that war profiteers are the political campaign financiers.
FYI....
Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions | OpenSecrets
I briefly perused it, but didn't notice any military contractors.
Lots'o drug companies, rich people, equity companies, Hollywood types, etc.

I give you that the US population is probably the most violent and war loving on earth on average but even with that in mind I think that if they could vote on wars directly, most of the last ones wouldn't have happened or would have ended by now.

Of course, we don't vote directly on wars.
We vote in leaders who've sent us to war.

Trump didn't lose to Clinton because of his promise to "bring back the troops", in fact, it might have helped him get the presidency. (And not delivering might help him lose the next time.)
Your countrymen and women are bad but they aren't as bad as you make them.

I'm not saying that anyone is bad....although I could say that about some.
And I speak only of a general tendency to vote in hawks. Hillary's loss
was an exception, but then again....she did win the popular vote.
Trump might very well lose in 2020 precisely because he started
no new wars, & scaled back the conflicts we're still involved in.
Had he attacked Iran, it might've clinched re-election.
1) Distract from his poor management & verbal faux pas.
2) Instill a sense we shouldn't switch commanders in wartime.
3) Create a fear of the enemy, with tough-as-nails Trump to
keep us safe.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Any one can put out a bounty.
However two can play that game.
And it Is not always the one with the biggest pot that wins.
The winner is usually the one collecting the pots.

 

[tytlyf]

Any one can put out a bounty.
However two can play that game.
And it Is not always the one with the biggest pot that wins.
The winner is usually the one collecting the pots.

It appears the bounties were responsible for American soldier deaths. Where's Trump and his response? Fake news? I know more than the Generals?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It appears the bounties were responsible for American soldier deaths. Where's Trump and his response? Fake news? I know more than the Generals?

I doubt it made any difference, they were trying their best to kill Americans anyway.
If true it would seem a pointless exercise.

Like presidents, generals only know what they are told.
We know. From past experience that American intelligence services rarely get things right. In the middle East.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes the strongest response is to not react immediately.
(Ameristan gets in trouble by acting without thinking.)
Tell me....do you really want Trump to take some decisive &
quick action to retaliate against a Russian threat which might
or might not have caused 1 or some Ameristanian deaths?
And this after we armed Afghans to kill many Russians when
they were there?
If we're to be hypocrites, let's at least think before responding.
Find a response that will actually advance some real goals.

Definitely.

Clandestine operations are nothing new in military circles. Offering bounties have been around for a very long time in the history of warfare and just about everybody does it.

That explains why the Trump administration didn't react right away because this kind of thing is fairly common.

That said, Russia shouldn't get away with it either and there are ways to go about evening the cost of any bounties offered by Russians.

 

[Revoltingest]

Definitely.

Clandestine operations are nothing new in military circles. Offering bounties have been around for a very long time in the history of warfare and just about everybody does it.

That explains why the Trump administration didn't react right away because this kind of thing is fairly common.

That said, Russia shouldn't get away with it either and there are ways to go about evening the cost of any bounties offered by Russians.

Russia will get away with it.
This is just as we got away with arming Russia's enemies.

Have you ever played go?
One's opponent often attacks. But it isn't always best to
respond to the attack. The game is won by making the
best (most profitable) move, which could be to ignore
the attack, & take profit elsewhere.

Another analogy.
When one is insulted on RF, is it always useful to respond
to this attack? No. Sometimes letting it slide is best.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Russia will get away with it.
This is just as we got away with arming Russia's enemies.

Have you ever played go?
One's opponent often attacks. But it isn't always best to
respond to the attack. The game is won by making the
best (most profitable) move, which could be to ignore
the attack, & take profit elsewhere.

Another analogy.
When one is insulted on RF, is it always useful to respond
to this attack? No. Sometimes letting it slide is best.

Sacrificing pawns to get the Queen.