Endless wars

[leov]

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan. "Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures."
Deep state rules America, voices of people are not counted in deception fog.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan. "Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures."
Deep state rules America, voices of people are not counted in deception fog.

Sensationalized article title. If anyone is to blame its all the people who have been ignoring our involvement in Afghanistan: the major media outlets and the people. The public knows we are at war and that soldiers are dying and getting hurt. We have supported the war. We are in favor of this.

Its not a good idea for our country to be involved in wars which are not directly affecting us. This is very bad for our country, and i would prefer that we stopped helping other countries with their wars. I also think that we should destroy our oil installation in Afghanistan.

The numbers are public knowledge, and the article admits "Sopko, the inspector general, told The Post that he did not suppress the blistering criticisms and doubts about the war that officials raised in the Lessons Learned interviews. He said it took his office three years to release the records because he has a small staff and because other federal agencies had to review the documents to prevent government secrets from being disclosed."

 

[Polymath257]

The ancient Romans had a temple where the doors were closed whenever there were no wars going on (literally, the gates of war).

The gates were closed only twice in the 500 years of the Roman Republic. The third time was under Augustus.

 

[leov]

The ancient Romans had a temple where the doors were closed whenever there were no wars going on (literally, the gates of war).

The gates were closed only twice in the 500 years of the Roman Republic. The third time was under Augustus.

"The Empire Never Ended"

 

[epronovost]

Its not a good idea for our country to be involved in wars which are not directly affecting us. This is very bad for our country, and i would prefer that we stopped helping other countries with their wars. I also think that we should destroy our oil installation in Afghanistan.

Do you remember that the US waged war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 US civilians? This is a war waged in retaliation to a regime that directly launched attacks on US soil. You didn't invade Afghanistan to ''help Afghanistan'', but to neutralise a direct threat. The failure of the US government was in stabilising the region quickly (in no small part due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which drained, troops, money and fostered a network of alliance between islamist groups and thus their resilience) and the lack of a clear diplomatic solution to the conflict. It took over a decade for negotiation to start with the enemy to settle the conflict. Due to the interconnectivity of our economies, the size and importance of the US, war which aren't directly affecting the US are going to become much less numerous as time pass.

 

[David1967]

What President Eisenhower warned against has happened.

 

[leov]

Do you remember that the US waged war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 US civilians? This is a war waged in retaliation to a regime that directly launched attacks on US soil. You didn't invade Afghanistan to ''help Afghanistan'', but to neutralise a direct threat. The failure of the US government was in stabilising the region quickly (in no small part due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which drained, troops, money and fostered a network of alliance between islamist groups and thus their resilience) and the lack of a clear diplomatic solution to the conflict. It took over a decade for negotiation to start with the enemy to settle the conflict. Due to the interconnectivity of our economies, the size and importance of the US, war which aren't directly affecting the US are going to become much less numerous as time pass.

911 was "Operation Himmler" type, it was designed do deceive and start wars.

 

[PureX]

Wars are a great way of taking money from millions of regular taxpayers and giving it to wealthy industrialists to provide all the materials. It's also a very good way of overthrowing foreign governments that won't allow U.S. business conglomerates to exploit their nation's resources, for profit. We are almost perpetually at war because it's good for wallets of the wealthy. And they don't really care how many of America's, or the worlds, sons and daughters are being killed in these endless wars. Their children certainly won't be among them.

 

[sun rise]

Do you remember that the US waged war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 US civilians? This is a war waged in retaliation to a regime that directly launched attacks on US soil. You didn't invade Afghanistan to ''help Afghanistan'', but to neutralise a direct threat. The failure of the US government was in stabilising the region quickly (in no small part due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which drained, troops, money and fostered a network of alliance between islamist groups and thus their resilience) and the lack of a clear diplomatic solution to the conflict. It took over a decade for negotiation to start with the enemy to settle the conflict. Due to the interconnectivity of our economies, the size and importance of the US, war which aren't directly affecting the US are going to become much less numerous as time pass.

When I hear crap about "deep state" and other nonsense, I remember why we went there in the first place - we were attacked by Islamic terrorists ruling that country. The fundamental problem we have is that we pull out, they'll get back into power and attack us again. It's a terrible situation but given our right to self-defense, I'm reluctantly in favor of staying there.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you remember that the US waged war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks which killed over 3000 US civilians? This is a war waged in retaliation to a regime that directly launched attacks on US soil. You didn't invade Afghanistan to ''help Afghanistan'', but to neutralise a direct threat. The failure of the US government was in stabilising the region quickly (in no small part due to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 which drained, troops, money and fostered a network of alliance between islamist groups and thus their resilience) and the lack of a clear diplomatic solution to the conflict. It took over a decade for negotiation to start with the enemy to settle the conflict. Due to the interconnectivity of our economies, the size and importance of the US, war which aren't directly affecting the US are going to become much less numerous as time pass.

Yes. I realize we were attacked. I realize that Afghanis have problems. I also realize that we are involved for oil now. We're defending oil interests. This is not good. Its time to leave. Either conquer the place or leave. This long term intervention is not constitutional. It is divisive, draws energy from our country, distracts from troubles at home, and it is not affordable. The 1 trillion dollars is mostly being spent to help Afghanis, to get their cooperation and to defend oil. Meanwhile here in the US we're ignoring the problems of our homeless people. Imagine 1 trillion dollars used to end homelessness and provide mental treatment. Seems like its instead being spent on creating new homeless veterans.

 

[epronovost]

I also realize that we are involved for oil now. We're defending oil interests.

Not really in the case of Afghanistan which doesn't produce much oil. It's also good to note that since the recession of 2007-8, oil prices are almost twice lower than they were in the early 2000. The US is now the largest oil producer in the world while an oil glut keeps its price low. China has invested more into Afghan oil than the US who since Obama took office has pursued very successfully a policy to become as independant from foreign oil as possible, an effort that was made possible thanks to fracking and accelerated offshore drillings. The idea that the US went to war for oil was plausible in the early 2000 and was certainly a driver for the intervention in Iraq, but the idea that the continued military interest of the US govenrment in the Middle East is for oil following the recession is much more eccentric. The US would gain from seeing oil price augment and one way to achieve higher prices is to restrict production., not increase it.

 

[metis]

Confidential documents reveal U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan. "Since 2001, more than 775,000 U.S. troops have deployed to Afghanistan, many repeatedly. Of those, 2,300 died there and 20,589 were wounded in action, according to Defense Department figures."
Deep state rules America, voices of people are not counted in deception fog.

No surprise. One would think that we would have learned our lesson on this after Vietnam, but what may have gotten learned was soon forgotten.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not really in the case of Afghanistan which doesn't produce much oil. It's also good to note that since the recession of 2007-8, oil prices are almost twice lower than they were in the early 2000. The US is now the largest oil producer in the world while an oil glut keeps its price low. China has invested more into Afghan oil than the US who since Obama took office has pursued very successfully a policy to become as independant from foreign oil as possible, an effort that was made possible thanks to fracking and accelerated offshore drillings. The idea that the US went to war for oil was plausible in the early 2000 and was certainly a driver for the intervention in Iraq, but the idea that the continued military interest of the US govenrment in the Middle East is for oil following the recession is much more eccentric. The US would gain from seeing oil price augment and one way to achieve higher prices is to restrict production., not increase it.

Oil flows from the country. That is plenty enough to embarrass our foreign interests. This continuing, ongoing war is not good; and it looks bad that we are profiting however little you consider it to be.

Its simultaneously costing too much money. Its bad for us both ways.

Nobody wants our soldiers to stay in Afghanistan, and they come back with terrible problems and can't get what they need from the VA and the same military that sends them over, and they have mental problems from the experience. Plus we're starting to have some career warriors that don't know how to do anything except fight, which by the way is not constitutional. The military is to be regulated with citizens not career warriors. If Afghanistan wants to raise an army and attack us, we'll beat it off. We don't need to babysit the country. Just go in a traditional way, blow the hell out of their tanks and guns and ships and planes. No more babysitting.

 

[leov]

No surprise. One would think that we would have learned our lesson on this after Vietnam, but what may have gotten learned was soon forgotten.

They learned, they created a fake Pear Harbor to make It 'righteous' war.

 

[dybmh]

What President Eisenhower warned against has happened.

I just gave u a star without watching the video.

Am I right to assume this is the famous speech about the risks of a dominant military industrial complex?

 

[Revoltingest]

What President Eisenhower warned against has happened.

For whatever his reasons, Eisenhower makes some questionable claims.
We've had a significant permanent arms industry here since the early 1800s,
with the northeast becoming the leading precision manufacturer in the world.
It only became larger later, as we realized that we were unprepared for WW1.
Would he, a former general, suggest that we shouldn't have an arms industry
in between wars? Nah....he'd know better. A country cannot overnite create
the materiel necessary for a modern war. Yet he doesn't address this.
Why?

He warns of the potentially corrupting effect of the military industrial complex
(MIC), but doesn't actually blame it for anything. Yet many have run with the
warning to claim it's become reality. Hass it?
Where's the evidence based argument.
The better explanation for our starting wars is that politicians see that waging
them bodes well for power. Note that both Bush & Obama were re-elected
while waging 2 wars. If the voters really didn't want the wars, they could've
sent these presidents packing. Note also that Obama campaigned upon
ending them, yet his first act in office was to not do so. And yet, he won
re-election with almost no protests against the wars....that dried up after
his first election. We have the MIC because voters want the materiel it
produces to be used in wars.
Voters....they have the power, & this is how they choose to use it.

 

[dybmh]

The better explanation for our starting wars is that politicians see that waging
them bodes well for power. Note that both Bush & Obama were re-elected
while waging 2 wars.

I think it's both... The military industry has become dominant in American politics, and, the American public's decicion whom to vote for is highly influenced by active military operations.

These two factors reinforce each other. The result is what we have now. Politicians are rewarded for employing military resources to solve geo-political problems.

You may not like this.. but Dennis Kucinich was right?We need a US Dept. Of Peace?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's both... The military industry has become dominant in American politics, and, the American public's decicion whom to vote for is highly influenced by active military operations.

These two factors reinforce each other. The result is what we have now. Politicians are rewarded for employing military resources to solve geo-political problems.

You may hate this.. but dennis kucinich was right. We need a US Dept. Of Peace.

The MIC certainly enables military adventurism, which inspires the voters.
But I give the latter the far greater responsibility. Voters direct politicians
to steer the ship of state into war. They've the great power here.

I've asked repeatedly on RF for examples of the MIC exercising control over
government. None has been presented yet. But conspiracy theories abound.

 

[dybmh]

The MIC certainly enables military adventurism, which inspires the voters.
But I give the latter the far greater responsibility. Voters direct politicians
to steer the ship of state into war. They've the great power here.

I've asked repeatedly on RF for examples of the MIC exercising control
over government. None has been presented yet. But conspiracies abound.

Just curious, are u taking into account political donations, and influence that comes from the MIC lobby?

Put simply: do u think campaign finance reform and increased requirements to expose influence from the MIC on politicians is useful? Or is it just.nibbling around the edges of a much larger problem?

Edit:. Pls note, I am talking about 'influence' not 'control' of politicians, their staff, and their campaigns.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just curious, are u taking into account political donations, and influence that comes from the MIC lobby?

What I saw from my brief involvements in the MIC is that companies I worked for
very often didn't fare well getting government cooperation, eg, export permission.
To those who would claim that they control government via political donations,
I say the burden on them is to show how much to whom. It's not info I have.

Put simply: do u think campaign finance reform and increased requirements to expose influence from the MIC on politicians is useful? Or is it just.nibbling around the edges of a much larger problem?

Campaign finance reform could exacerbate the problem. If power is taken from
one entity (companies in the MIC), this enhances power of others, eg, the
media. Note that news organizations do a whole lotta unregulated advocacy,
& they have great influence regarding war. Their record is mixed...sometimes
portraying war in a rousing way...other times making it look miserable.

Edit:. Pls note, I am talking about 'influence' not 'control' of politicians, their staff, and their campaigns.

Control would be in a continuum ranging from
minor influence to direct payoffs for actions.
Does anyone have evidence for the control they claim?
Is it significant relative to voters & politicians seeking war?