|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| My point is that he was right in that the US could do much more IF the public would let it. |
This may be true to an extent, but then again public opinion didn't exactly stop him from going to war in the first place, did it? And now he's got nothing to lose (he won't be re-elected anyway) so I wonder what would have been stopping him from going all out if he hadn't been already... Honestly, while I've never been to Iraq to see things first hand, I'm pretty sure we don't hear about most of the sh*t that goes down over there, though it's no secret that it's much worse than the watered-down story we get fed in the news. I strongly suspect they're doing their worst a lot of the time. People get killed every day, so I don't think we can be holding back all that much...
But sure, you're probably right in that we could be even more ruthless if we really wanted to. I still don't think that would help us achieve our aims, but would rather just make the insurgents even more desperate and even more devoted to their cause. Anyway, my main point was just to refute n3ptune's asinine portayal of us merely putting in a half-assed effort and his failing to recognize that the main cause of our failure over there has (obviously) been our over-confidence and incompetence, and not just our indifference (as he believes  ) .
Also, I don't think the reasons for this incompetence can be explained away so easily by saying things would be different if the public allowed it. I highly doubt the U.S. would be the superpower it is today if we behaved just like Mongols or Nazis or whatever else. If it weren't a democracy (at least ostensibly) with political and economic freedom it would be an altogether different country IMO. You could equally hypothesize that we would've turned out like the Soviet Union if we had a totalitarian gov't. But all such hypothesizing is useless, because that's just not how things are and we can't have it both ways (saying we're the strongest country and that we would be able to do just as the Romans did). The dynamics are quite different and do not lend themselves to convenient juxtaposition. All I know is we're better off focussing on things like the economy, as war is just wasting money and hurting us in many ways (we're not as invincible as we thought).
| Quote: |
| I agree with you that modern nationalism makes things harder for a would-be conqueror, but I see nationalism as very much synonymous with Jewish religious feeling ca. 70AD. It just requires more ruthless measures to defeat. The Romans killed or exiled pretty much the entire population |
I think if the Jews of that time had had car bombs and guns it would've been a totally different story. Sounds silly, but I think it really is as simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| still don't think that would help us achieve our aims |
Our aims are to secure oil interests.
I have at least a dozen or two friends, Marines, who are in Iraq. I've seen pictures. It's brutal.... but isn't anything compared to what it could be.
You really don't have a fucking clue.
| Quote: |
| I think if the Jews of that time had had car bombs and guns it would've been a totally different story. Sounds silly, but I think it really is as simple as that. |
Ah, no. If the Jews of that time had had car bombs than the Romans would have invented gas chambers. They would have killed everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| n3ptne wrote: |
| Our aims are to secure oil interests. |
no sh*t.
| Quote: |
| I have at least a dozen or two friends, Marines, who are in Iraq. I've seen pictures. It's brutal.... but isn't anything compared to what it could be. |
quit defending your friends.
| Quote: |
| Ah, no. If the Jews of that time had had car bombs than the Romans would have invented gas chambers. They would have killed everyone. |
I wonder how it would be possible to gas people who have bombs...
As for the rest, I'll get back to you in awhile... busy just now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| so, torture of prisoners, indefinite imprisonment without trial in our dungeons, and the 650 odd thousand Iraqis deaths resulting from our ill-planned, ill-conceived and ill-fated (not to mention illegal) war counts as "limited brutality" in your books? hmm... |
Yeh. Compared to Vietnam. Compared to military tactics employed 50-100 years ago... thats REALLY limited brutality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| n3ptne wrote: |
| Iraq is a non issue militarily |
The nearly $400 billion dollars spent says you're wrong (plus your just always wrong).
| Quote: |
| A classic comparison can be made to the Civil War, where an inferior force instigated a war and ended up winning because of the unwillingness of its opponent to invade. |
 a "classic comparison" indeed ... you're just full of it, ain'tcha? LOL.
| Quote: |
| If the American population were behind the war. If we presented a unified front, sent women to work in factories to make armaments while drafting every able and willing man |
You keep positing these not-so-clever little "ifs" like they matter, and try to rest your whole idiotic case on them. Such a thing will never happen over Iraq; that's about as likely as the Iranian Ayatollah converting to Christianity and becoming the darling of the Western world. I suppose anything's possible, but anyone with a brain (i.e. not you) can see it's not f-cking likely.
| Quote: |
| the war would be over in the blink of an eye |
only if we used nukes (and lots of them). very unlikely.
| Quote: |
| I'm not trying to brag about what America can and can't do, but it strikes me as appalling that the average international citizen doesn't realize the true nature of the beast they are dealing with. They don't seem to grasp that the UN means nothing. That the US will do whatever it pleases, whenever it pleases, and use economic and military force to cojole others into supporting it's broad aims. |
yes you are trying to brag (you're "proud" remember  ), but it just makes you look like a total ass. the international community isn't stupid and yes they do know the score. It's our own current administration that's out of touch. And no we don't do "whatever we please" (I already explained this by example of North Korea and Iran defying us outright). You are *so* wrong about everything, it's actually kind of amusing. Keep it up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
2810 - The total number of American deaths in Iraq since 3/03
21077 - Total number of American wounded since the beginning.
58148 - The total number of American deaths in Vietnam.
American Deaths by year:
3078 Prior to 1966 - (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
5008 - 1966
9378 - 1967
14589 - 1968 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch - 32,053)
9414 - 1969
4221 - 1971
1381 - 1972
300 (Total while Nixon was on watch - 15,316)
Estimated Vietnamese Deaths: Over 4 million during a period of 11 years.
Estimated Iraqi Deaths: 600,000 (a highly disputed number).
Average American Deaths per Year in Vietnam: Roughly 9000.
Average Vietnamese Deaths per Year: Roughly 360,000.
Average American Deaths per Year in Iraq: Roughly 900.
Average Iraqi Deaths per Year: Roughly 200,000.
Average American/Vietnamese Death Ratio per Year: 1:40.
Average American/Iraqi Death Ratio per Year: 1:222.
Facts:
America is fighting it's most successful war EVER in Iraq and is using tactics FAR less brutal than employed in any prior engagement.
Probable Theory:
If America were to employ previously known successful tactics in Iraq, such as fire bombing, indiscriminate slaughter of civilian populations (circa Mai Lai, which wasn't really that atrocious in comparison to what went unreported), or internment camps on the levels previously seen (Gitmo is a joke in comparison), than the war in Iraq would cease to be a war. If America took a page out of Rome's book and went to the wall it would all be over in a few or two.
Again, I don't advocate that America does such things. Personally I'm appalled that we are even fighting a war in Iraq, while seeing no reason for doing so. In fact I have become so angry at my perception of American society and politics (reflexsive of the low levels of intelligence see in this post) that I left America and have plans to immigrate.
Nuclear weapons are not even relevant to the discussion of America's ability to utterly dominate any opponent, given the inclination of Americans to do so. They aren't even economically viable in comparison to the much lower cost of carpet bombs, napalm, and bio/chemical weapons. Given such a motivation the American military machine has the unrivaled ability to burn every major city in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Palestine, Libya, Iran, and Venezula to the ground in the span of time no greater than two weeks. That coupled with our further ability to destroy any semblance of infastructure in the same span of time for all aforementioned countries, all the while not even presenting close to the unified front found in American society during WW2 demonstrates, unequivocally demonstrates how much of a real issue our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are.
You want to talk about what America could do with a unified front? Europe would be gone in less than a year. America wouldn't even have to use nukes.
Now I'm sure the whole zealot lot of you ridiculous tools are going to tell me that Europe can launch missles at America at will, and they can... for now. In a year or two?
The scary part? American society is starting to resembles the precursors of Nazi society... want to talk about fundamentalists and propaganda induced hysteria that facilitates in the unquestioned use of power by authority? Look at America.
That's reality. You want to talk shit about America, and how we can't do this, that, or the other thing.. fine, be a fool. Ignore all the signs.
Statistics are a bitch aren't they? Too bad these kind of numbers arent available for music though...
Damn... hurts to be this good.
...now if you'll excuse me I gotta go get hammered with a bunch of Marines and gorgeous Korean women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MantisBot
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Location: Itaewon, Seoul, SK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: Re: how does it feel to be American? |
|
|
| essexboy wrote: |
It must be pretty rubbish being an American abroad these days.
It seems the only way to ingratiate yourselves with most non-Americans is to be extremely self-deprecating. I almost feel sorry for you guys. I am English, and England has done its fair share of damage the world over, but we seem to be ok.
Does it bother you guys? |
Wow, I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about. w00t!
Seriously though, what loser Americans have you been hanging out with and why haven't you put them out of our misery yet? There are enough of us around who are cool to not have to deal with the asshats... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| n3ptne wrote: |
2810 - The total number of American deaths in Iraq since 3/03
21077 - Total number of American wounded since the beginning.
58148 - The total number of American deaths in Vietnam.
American Deaths by year:
3078 Prior to 1966 - (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
5008 - 1966
9378 - 1967
14589 - 1968 (Total while JFK & LBJ were on watch - 32,053)
9414 - 1969
4221 - 1971
1381 - 1972
300 (Total while Nixon was on watch - 15,316)
Estimated Vietnamese Deaths: Over 4 million during a period of 11 years.
Estimated Iraqi Deaths: 600,000 (a highly disputed number).
Average American Deaths per Year in Vietnam: Roughly 9000.
Average Vietnamese Deaths per Year: Roughly 360,000.
Average American Deaths per Year in Iraq: Roughly 900.
Average Iraqi Deaths per Year: Roughly 200,000.
Average American/Vietnamese Death Ratio per Year: 1:40.
Average American/Iraqi Death Ratio per Year: 1:222. |
And yet we lost the Vietnam war. Guess that destroys your point. Ouch! (and even after you put so much time into gathering those numbers so you could pretend to be smart)...
| Quote: |
Facts:
America is fighting it's most successful war EVER in Iraq and is using tactics FAR less brutal than employed in any prior engagement. |
Fact: we are LOSING the war, and will probably LOSE in the end.
Fact: your IQ is the inverse off all those irrelevant stats you posted.
| Quote: |
Probable Theory:
If America were to employ previously known successful tactics in Iraq, such as fire bombing, indiscriminate slaughter of civilian populations (circa Mai Lai, which wasn't really that atrocious in comparison to what went unreported), or internment camps on the levels previously seen (Gitmo is a joke in comparison), than the war in Iraq would cease to be a war. If America took a page out of Rome's book and went to the wall it would all be over in a few or two. |
Already covered this. We lost the war in Vietnam so all your comparisons are moot.
| Quote: |
| Again, I don't advocate that America does such things. Personally I'm appalled that we are even fighting a war in Iraq, while seeing no reason for doing so. In fact I have become so angry at my perception of American society and politics (reflexsive of the low levels of intelligence see in this post) that I left America and have plans to immigrate. |
You're lying. It would be instructive for you if you went to Iraq.
(see bold): yeah I agree your post showed very "low levels of intelligence". glad to see you affirm it.
| Quote: |
| Nuclear weapons are not even relevant to the discussion of America's ability to utterly dominate any opponent, given the inclination of Americans to do so. |
| Quote: |
| They aren't even economically viable in comparison to the much lower cost of carpet bombs, napalm, and bio/chemical weapons. Given such a motivation the American military machine has the unrivaled ability to burn every major city in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Palestine, Libya, Iran, and Venezula to the ground in the span of time no greater than two weeks. That coupled with our further ability to destroy any semblance of infastructure in the same span of time for all aforementioned countries, all the while not even presenting close to the unified front found in American society during WW2 demonstrates, unequivocally demonstrates how much of a real issue our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are. |
2 things: first, your writing style sucks a hobo's nasty ass (you write as if you were left back in the 6th grade, the harder you try the more it sucks). Second, all your BS above does not change the fact that we lost in Vietnam and are losing in Iraq. That's the bottom line.
| Quote: |
| You want to talk about what America could do with a unified front? Europe would be gone in less than a year. America wouldn't even have to use nukes. |
I take it you've never travelled or seen anything outside your little shack on the prairies. I picture you there alone with maybe a sister and a couple of cows. Truly ignorant about everything outside your inbred little sphere. Makes your shi-te funnier to read though (it's got that special halfwit touch).
| Quote: |
| Now I'm sure the whole zealot lot of you ridiculous tools are going to tell me that Europe can launch missles at America at will, and they can... for now. In a year or two? |
| Quote: |
| The scary part? American society is starting to resembles the precursors of Nazi society... want to talk about fundamentalists and propaganda induced hysteria that facilitates in the unquestioned use of power by authority? Look at America. |
Only someone with an extremely superficial understanding of how things work would compare our gov't to the Nazis in a serious way as you have. It's a sure sign you're talking out your ass. Obviously there are very broad similitaries between all states and governments in history, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
| Quote: |
| That's reality. You want to talk *beep* about America, and how we can't do this, that, or the other thing.. fine, be a fool. Ignore all the signs. |
That's not reality. That's just your dementia talking.
| Quote: |
| Statistics are a *beep* aren't they? |
Not really. They're a tool that can be used to support arguments. In your case they haven't done that at all. WE LOST THE WAR IN VIETNAM YOU IDIOT. That's a bitch, isn't it?
| Quote: |
| Too bad these kind of numbers arent available for music though... |
Guffaw. You've been *destroyed* in two threads. Atta be.
| Quote: |
| Damn... hurts to be this good |
| Quote: |
| ...now if you'll excuse me I gotta go get hammered with a bunch of Marines and gorgeous Korean women. |
Mod Edit: Removed flame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And yet we lost the Vietnam war. Guess that destroys your point. Ouch! (and even after you put so much time into gathering those numbers so you could pretend to be smart)... |
We didn't lose Vietnam. We didn't fight Vietnam.
It was never declared.
We never invaded.
We didn't even try to win in Vietnam. The height of our troop involvement saw 500,000 soldiers that were restricted from doing their jobs.
| Quote: |
| Only someone with an extremely superficial understanding of how things work would compare our gov't to the Nazis in a serious way as you have. It's a sure sign you're talking out your ass. Obviously there are very broad similitaries between all states and governments in history, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. |
Chomsky is superficial? He, in more ways than one, does exactly that. Compares the modern American society to German society prior to 1940. Want the citations?
We're losing in Iraq? How? We have military control over ever major terrirtory. The war is already over. We're occupying Iraq... and we're doing quite successfully.
Oh, and I love the smileys... real nice poncho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MantisBot
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Location: Itaewon, Seoul, SK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may or may not fall on deaf ears, but I wonder if either of you two dueling verbal pugilists have thought of this:
Who gives a *beep* if we "win" or "lose" the fist fight? Look at the standard of Iraqi living and I think it says enough: we fucked shit up worse than it was before we got there. I think everyone can agree that it's nice we took out Saddam but honestly, is the cost worth it? It's arguably not.
And before anyone throws out that tired "Well why don't you ask an Iraqi how they feel about what they prefer" I'd recommend doing just that before asking the question of me. It may be a tough call: bombs and rampant fighting or Saddam with his secret police and what have you. Not saying taking him out was bad, but perhaps some pre-war planning for the post-fight action would've been a good thing to do.
Oh, and n3ptne, being able to kick someone's ass is pretty much meaningless if you aren't ready to deal with the aftermath of the fight. Bush and his administration were so caught up with the awesomeness of their toy (the military) that they forgot to figure out how to clean up their mess (Iraq). You can see this in the hundreds of tons of explosives that were not protected as our troops moved in on Baghdad which are now the primary ingredient of IEDs, in the looting that occurred shortly after we attacked which resulted in the loss of artifacts from that museum in Baghdad, in the number of troops we didn't send which left us unprepared for an occupation, also in the laughable size of the coalition forces when compared to the first gulf war (the one in which Cheney said going in with the million+ troops we had would leave us in a quagmire). Hell, this isn't even a comprehensive list, there's tons of stuff to mention.
We are not winning in Iraq and the only people responsible are the ones in this administration and those who tow the line against all reason. It is not the job of the citizens of the United States to follow the president. It is the president's job to convince the citizens of the United States that his policies are effective and necessary. So far, Bush and co. are not having a whole lot of success (if his approval rating and the precarious position of the Republican Party means anything).
I for one can't wait for next week:D
Oh, and I hope you counted the number of people who died of the wounds that they received in Iraq after they'd been taken from the battlefield when putting your total number of dead from this war up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, and n3ptne, being able to kick someone's ass is pretty much meaningless if you aren't ready to deal with the aftermath of the fight. Bush and his administration were so caught up with the awesomeness of their toy (the military) that they forgot to figure out how to clean up their mess (Iraq). You can see this in the hundreds of tons of explosives that were not protected as our troops moved in on Baghdad which are now the primary ingredient of IEDs, in the looting that occurred shortly after we attacked which resulted in the loss of artifacts from that museum in Baghdad, in the number of troops we didn't send which left us unprepared for an occupation, also in the laughable size of the coalition forces when compared to the first gulf war (the one in which Cheney said going in with the million+ troops we had would leave us in a quagmire). Hell, this isn't even a comprehensive list, there's tons of stuff to mention |
Oh, we without a doubt have blundered in dozens of ways. Still I don't see how anyone can rationally state that "we aren't winning in Iraq"... we sure as hell aren't "losing" in Iraq.
What constitutes loss? What were the objectives of going there in the first place?
To placate, democratize, and liberate a people? Don't be so fucking naive.
We went to Iraq for one and one reason only: Money. We are getting out of Iraq exactly what we wanted, the ability to funnel billions into a foreign engagement and continue a social economic plan that has been in effect since the collapse of Capitalism. Essentially America can't function if it isn't spending money with the intent of giving kickbacks to the corporate elite.
Do we spend more than we make? Of course, thats the very nature of the system.
Iraq, just like America's other incursions into Libya, Cuba, Nicuragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, et al., were all fought under this ideology. They were all about making money, and making money is exactly what we got out of them.
Sure you, and everyone else, can bury your heads and think that the US government is incompetent an effectively unable to do anything. The truth is much scarier. These people are highly intelligent and very able. They know exactly what they're doing. Were some explosives left unguarded? Sure. So what. We're still fighting what may amount to the most successful war in the history of warfare. The Russians in Afghanistan lost 15,000 troops in a period of 10 years... and the Russians fought a much more brutal campaign than the American public would ever let it's military machine conduct.
How many coalition troops have been lost in Afghanistan in over a 5 year span of time? 436. How many Americans? 282.
I love to hear people say how the people in power "didn't anticipate the levels of insurgency that they are now struggling to overcome".
This is our second war in Afghanistan. We funded and helped train their military, we directly supported Bin Laden, we gave rise to the Taliban, and for nearly a decade we watched (and helped) their tactics and dedication to fighting a technologically superior, yet ideologically inferior, Russian military.
Now, 10 years later, we are essentially fighting the very people who were once our allies. We knew very well what they were capable of before we went to war. We knew from day one that these people were never going to lie down and be subjugated by any foreign occupiers.
How else do you think we improved on the Russian casualty statistics? Do you think the Americans are better trained and equipped for fighting a guerilla war? You think the Americans are smarter than the Russians?
The Russian force in Afghanistan grew to over 100,000, and in the first five years they incurred military losses roughly 50 times greater than that of America, despite a limited troop presence of roughly 5 times less (18,000). Then again... maybe the Americans are smarter than the Russians. Turns out that it's much harder for the Mujahideen to fight a war against a superpower when they aren't being financed by one, and that it's much easier for a superpower to fight against them when any thought of significant foreign assistance, i.e. insolence of American supremacy, is unfathomable at this point.
It really isn't difficult to understand when you take into context that the US has been able to methodologically prepare for a decade. I can only fathom a guess at when the plans were first drawn up to invade but if you think they were written any time after or during the late 1990s you are being really crass.
My guess? The US first gave thought to a military incursion in Afghanistan and how it would be conducted sometime between the late 1980s and early 1990s, but it wouldn't suprise me one bit to find out they are much older than that.
As for Iraq? It's our second war there too. Again we have a previous history of funding and training their military, and, no surprise here, we had supported Saddam and his regime and helped them maintain power for nearly two decades.
Do you really think the US wasn't as prepared for this as you think?
The only people who should have been shocked, and taken by surprise, are the people whose political and historical awareness is on the same level as a nine year old. Is that what you'll have me believe about American politicians? If so it says something far more revealing about the American people (circa my comment about low levels of intelligence) vis-a-vis how they vote and who they have been voting for over the last fifty years.
Personally I find that scenario a little far fetched. I just think American society (and most of you) have allowed yourselves to be inundated by the propaganda wing, er media, of the government.
I'll set my watch and see how long it takes for someone to start talking about how the media isn't controlled by the government... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that in my excitement over having relieved myself on another human being that I forgot (ok, I was just too lazy to spend a few hours running the numbers) to make mention of what I think are the most telling statistics:
Total US deaths from Iraq/Afghanistan: 3092
Total US population: 300 000 000
Total cost of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan: roughly $400 000 000 000USD
American GDP/year: $12 400 000 000 000USD
American GDP over 5 years: $62 000 000 000 000USD
Percent of the population killed in the wars: .001%
Percent of the total American GDP over 5 years spent on war: .64%
Average cost per American per year of both wars: $266.66USD
Average cost per American per day: 73� USD
Total cost of the Vietnam War (including inflation): $531 500 000 000USD
Cost per year of the Vietnam War: $66 437 500 000USD
Cost per year of the Iraq/Afghan Wars: $80 000 000 000USD
Total US population circa 1970: 203 302 031
Average cost per American per year of the Vietnam War: $40.85USD
Average cost per American per day of the Vietnam War: 11� USD
Percent of the population killed in Vietnam: .0286%
Percent of the total American GDP over 8 years spent in Vietnam: 6.6%
So in a nutshell kiddies:
The war in Iraq/Afghanistan, while overall more costly, is actually about 10 times cheaper compared to the GDP.
While it is true that the average American is paying 62� USD more per day to finance the war, that number does not reflect inflation. Accounting for inflation Vietnam cost the average American citizen, working with the population data from 1970 approximately 58� USD per day.
So... for an extra 4� per person per day we are fighting a war (or losing it, rather, just like we lost Vietnam) that is roughly 300 times less deadly for our soldiers in comparsion to the total population. Granted we've only been fighting in the Middle East for 5 years, while we fought in Vietnam for 8, so essentially the longer our operations in the Middle East last, the more dramatic this relationship is going to get, and while Iraq definately has a more costly relationship on a day to day level, our military has still improved vastly since the 1970s. This still isn't taking into account the vastly larger troop presence in Vietnam (500 000 at peak involvement) that is around 5 times greater than the presence in Iraq/Afghanistan, nor is it taking into consideration the roughly 4 000 000 Vietnamese killed over the span of 11 years by such a greater force as opposed to the 600 000 Iraqis killed over the span of 5 years by such a smaller force.
Granted the average soldier and his equipment is now much more expensive than his Vietnam era counterpart, but the per soldier per kill per year ratio has also risen dramatically. More expensive and more effective.
These numbers look great. Less percent of the GDP. Less people dying. Only nominal increases in the day to day operational cost, and less foreign nationals being slaughtered. Sure it costs us more now to kill someone than it did in Vietnam, but comon, I never said the US military was perfect.
...I spend more on coffee per day. Yeh. We're completely getting our asses kicked in Iraq. The shame of losing is so great. What's we gonna do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MantisBot
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
Location: Itaewon, Seoul, SK
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
n3ptne:
I suppose if you consider winning to be about money and low casualties then yeah, we're winning. If you consider it to be about going in there and doing what our government has been saying would be a cake-walk then I'm sorry, we're not winning.
I understand all of these numbers you've tossed out and, believe it or not, I knew most of the little factoids before hand. Hell, I've been arguing that we knew what weapons Saddam had because we sold them to him all those years ago for years. These statistics you tossed out are nothing new and can be dug up in a matter of minutes (as I'm sure you've discovered already). For that, you get a cookie. For straying off topic with Afghanistan (at least in regard to what I was discussing), you get a pat on the head.
As for the conclusions you've drawn, yeah it's a possibility. However, I still don't agree that we're winning in Iraq just because there are fewer deaths. We haven't been able to do anything (nor have we produced anything) that was promised at the outset. I don't believe a policy like that is sustainable and I think that what we're finding now is that those groups which we funded and trained are starting to become a bit unpredictable. No matter how powerful you figure the characters are behind the scenes, I doubt they're all knowing. You might argue that 9/11, Spain, India, and England (as well as any other recent attacks I may have left out) were engineered, but you'd have to destroy all of the tin-foil in a 20 mile radius from you to convince me you weren't wearing your brain protector. Oh yeah, something more than statistics tied together with conjecture would help your cause as well.
Now the next time you talk about "relieving" yourself on someone, until you've taken a leak on their shoes and a dump on their head I suggest stowing that crap. There's no call for it quite honestly. No need to get so touchy, it's just politics. Yeesh dude. You aren't a cat now, are you? *rawr!* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I suppose if you consider winning to be about money and low casualties then yeah, we're winning. If you consider it to be about going in there and doing what our government has been saying would be a cake-walk then I'm sorry, we're not winning. |
What the American government says it's there for and what the American government is really there for are not necessarily the same thing, at least I don't think so. In my opinion we are certainly winning, not because of the money or military effectiveness compared to Vietnam, but because America is getting exactly what America wants out of Iraq, and on top of that is doing so with those incredible numbers.
| Quote: |
| I understand all of these numbers you've tossed out |
If you couldn't then we'd be in a lot of trouble now wouldn't we? They shouldn't be very hard to understand.
| Quote: |
| I knew most of the little factoids before hand. Hell, I've been arguing that we knew what weapons Saddam had because we sold them to him all those years ago for years. These statistics you tossed out are nothing new and can be dug up in a matter of minutes (as I'm sure you've discovered already). For that, you get a cookie. For straying off topic with Afghanistan (at least in regard to what I was discussing), you get a pat on the head. |
I looked up the statistics and then I ran the numbers to come up with averages. If I had been able to find them I wouldn't have spent as long as I did working on them.
Straying off topic in regards to Afghanistan? I think it was highly on topic, and while different than Iraq, I think it makes for much more objectively valid comparisons because of the recent Soviet war there. My point in bringing up Afghanistan was simply this: No one, not anyone educated, should have been surprised by the level of insurgency violence that we are facing in either Iraq, or Afghanistan, and to state that the US Government didn't anticipate it is downright insulting.
On one hand I think I've pretty much demonstrated that the US Military, in the span of 30 years, has become more efficent, better trained, and far more capable. On the other hand people would have me believe that they are so incompetent that they didn't anticipate (and prepare) for something that anyone who paid attention in the 80s (PS.. I wasn't even ten before the Soviet pullout) could have told them about.
| Quote: |
| We haven't been able to do anything (nor have we produced anything) that was promised at the outset. |
Promise #1: Oust Saddam Husseins regime, capture him and put him on trial in a kangaroo court for all the world to see.
Promise #2: Invade and occupy Iraq indefinately.
Bullshit Promise #1: Democratize Iraq and liberate a people who clearly, and rightfully, percieve us to be oppressors.
Bullshit Promise #2: Be home in time for supper.
If you really think that at any top level of the industrial military complex that anyone actually bought into the propaganda that you did than you are crazy. We're talking about the people who designed the propaganda that you bought into so they could facilitate in doing exactly what they wanted to do from day one: Occupy Iraq and control foreign oil interests.
| Quote: |
| I don't believe a policy like that is sustainable and I think that what we're finding now is that those groups which we funded and trained are starting to become a bit unpredictable. |
The only way a policy like that isnt going to be sustainable is if you, and the rest of America wake the *beep* up and start thinking for yourselves. You think we are just now finding out that those groups are a bit unpredictable? That's fucking why we funded and trained them you mongoloid. That's why they beat the Soviets. That's why they stayed in power for thirty years.
| Quote: |
| You might argue that 9/11, Spain, India, and England (as well as any other recent attacks I may have left out) were engineered, but you'd have to destroy all of the tin-foil in a 20 mile radius from you to convince me you weren't wearing your brain protector. |
I don't think they were engineered, but I sure as shit have strong suspicions that 9/11, in paticular, was allowed to happen much in the same way Pearl Harbor was. Does that necessarily equal that Bush knew before hand? No. I fully believe that there is such a thing as a shadow government and that the people with real power, the ones who are all knowing and who have willfully designed American's foreign and corporate policies for the last one hundred years are the ones whose name you will never know. Do I think that some of these people, spooks if you will, knew 9/11 was going to happen and let it proceed as planned to take advantage of the sociological impact that would necessitate? Yes.
Something like 11 different countries, including Israel and Germany, have since come forward and said their intelligence people gave explicit warnings to ours. Is it possible that each time we dropped the ball and are truly as incompetent as the media and government would have us believe? Sure... but then someone who is much smarter than me would have to explain how one hand the US Government is the most incompetent group of people ever assembled, and how without any degree of malice or premeditation managed to, at the very least, commit numerous acts of criminal negligence, all the while masterminding two wars that are the most successful ones ever fought in history. And if that is the case then who are these criminally negligent people? Why aren't they being tried for just that?
| Quote: |
| Oh yeah, something more than statistics tied together with conjecture would help your cause as well. |
Like what asshole? A home video of Bush snorting a line with Cheney talking about how hes heading down to Flordia to read a book upside down to a class full of school kids because he wants to look stupid in front of the entire country so he can get away with starting two wars that he had been planning to start since he took office dated September 10th?
Well shit, I'll file a FOIA and shoot it right out to lil guy. No problem.
How about this instead... you actually elaborate on your disagreeing "conjecture", and use some statistics to rationally take me from points A to B on exactly why you don't agree. Using history and some citations would be a help, instead of just saying "Ahhhh, no".
| Quote: |
| Now the next time you talk about "relieving" yourself on someone, until you've taken a leak on their shoes and a dump on their head I suggest stowing that crap. There's no call for it quite honestly. No need to get so touchy, it's just politics. Yeesh dude. You aren't a cat now, are you? *rawr!* |
Just politics? People are dying everyday and America is quickly become the most fascist country on the planet... it's already the greatest instigator and threat to world peace along with it's terrorist butt-buddy state Israel. And why is this happening? Because Americans and foreign nationals alike have their heads SO FAR UP THEIR ASSES that their reality is so different from what is really going on that the people in charge can do whatever they like and get away with it.
Don't agree? THERE ARE OVER A BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET WHO STILL BELIEVE THAT A MAN ROSE FROM THE DEAD, WALKED AROUND, AND THEN ASCENDED TO A PLACE THAT DOESN'T EXIST! AND YOU THINK I'M THE ONE WEARING A TIN FOIL HAT YOU PONCE?
I'm not going to be nice. I'm not going to lick your asshole and say please. What you need is a good kick in the ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry dude... not only am I an American but I'm from Detroit. We bring guns to knife fights.
My first post in this thread, as quoted below contains not a single insult against any individual, and while some of it may be offensive, I didn't get involved in the name calling until it was directed at me... and then all the other little pansies scattered.
"You know, you're like the A-Bomb. Everyone's laughing and having a good time. Then BOOM. You show up and everthing's dead"
And I did show up, all the while presenting by far the most rationally expressed opinion and point of view
You got involved too... but I'm still waiting for the coherent part. Oh, and some creative insults wouldn't hurt either... at least I amuse myself with my line of shit, you're really good for nothing you know that?
| Quote: |
I'm an American. I cope by using two fundamentally different tactics:
1.) When left alone to expound on the fate of global politics I'm probably the harshest critic of America in the room. Frankly I can't stand our political organization and will step it up one notch further and state that using a document 200 years old to base our administrations on is an utterly moronic practice. I advocate broad political reforms to change the nature of the system, but can't say I really find intentional and overtly evil flaws with the current administration.
I'm of the mind that the world is filled with decent people but that conflict arises because the nature of the systems that people exist in. Essentially Bush is a decent enough guy who is doing exactly what he thinks is best to preserve America's security. I'm not saying I agree with it, or even that it's the best solution, but I really have a hard time believing he's the Devil no matter how much I enjoyed Chavez saying it.
The two party system that exists in America makes it impossible for anyone to elected with an agenda that has a chance at making a difference in America's foreign policy. I think the nature of our economy and corporate interests lay at the heart of the problem but that's an entirely different issue. In a nutshell I didn't vote, but if I had I would have voted for Bush... despite the fact I can't stand him. Why? I thought Kerry was even more incompetent. What atonishes me is that out of a country of 300million we can't get someone better than those two. Why waste time arguing over who is the lesser evil... why not wonder why those were the only two candidates American's were given to chose from.
2.) The absolute *beep* second I hear anyone from another country preemptively start to bad mouth my country I lose it. Don't lecture me about what we're doing wrong. You all had centuries to rape and pillage the world and now seem to find it conveinent to chastize America for doing the same thing. I'm not saying it's right... but get the *beep* off your high horse. We've accomplished things that your country's wouldn't have dreamed of doing in their wettest of wet dreams.
...oh and yeh, Canadians are by far the most insecure of the Western cultures you can choose from. It's as if their entire identity rests on having to explain how either a.) they aren't like America in this regard, or b.) how America is like them in another regard. They have no national identity that doesn't some how have to do with the US. It's really sad.
*junior* America |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
