4 ms·

Too bad you can't do basic math either. America has spent/committed trillions of dollars on two wars that it has lost. That money got us nothing but more terror

by pstuart 10y ago

Too bad you can't do basic math either. America has spent/committed trillions of dollars on two wars that it has lost. That money got us nothing but more terrorists to be afraid of. If that money was invested in a sound "socialist" manner we wouldn't have the level of despair that would incite millions of citizens to vote for a candidate who promised to "blow up the system". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study...

goatlover 10y ago
What do you mean by "lost"? You mean the nation building part? Because Afghanistan and Iraq didn't win those wars. The occupation and attempts at nation building are a different story.
- pstuart 10y ago
  Lost, as in not securing these countries to "make them safe for America" or whatever bullshit spin the war-mongers want to put out there. Afghanistan is more unstable now that we've invaded. And the war in Iraq only created a fertile ground for Islamic State to rise from the ashes. Remember what Colin Powell said: "you break it, you bought it". We broke it and have utterly failed to repair the damage done. Back to you, goatlover, define "win" in these scenarios and tell me about the victories that have "won" these wars.
  - goatlover 10y ago
    When I think of winning wars, I think of one military defeating another, and the result being that the defeated government surrenders to the other, or is unable to continue waging war. I consider nation building to be separate from that, even though it involves military occupation. One can win the initial war, and lose the occupation, or at least fail to achieve stated objectives.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  I don't think anyone has any illusions that the US lost militarily, but it's a bit disingenuous to only look at that part of the picture. The majority of expenses were on the occupation and nation-building efforts, which are a mixed bag as far as success is concerned.
  - pstuart 10y ago
    > it's a bit disingenuous to only look at that part of the picture. The occupation and "nation-building" were effectively military efforts. And they've failed spectacularly. I'd be interested in the good parts of that mixed bag you mentioned. What good has come out of this other than defense contractor's profits?
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      Some examples of the "good" are the massive amount of infrastructure that was built/re-built and the trade that was established with other countries. Don't mistake what I'm saying for a defense of the invasion of either country. Just trying to look at things objectively rather than through an emotional lens.

by pstuart 10y ago

goatlover 10y ago

What do you mean by "lost"? You mean the nation building part? Because Afghanistan and Iraq didn't win those wars. The occupation and attempts at nation building are a different story.

pstuart 10y ago
Lost, as in not securing these countries to "make them safe for America" or whatever bullshit spin the war-mongers want to put out there. Afghanistan is more unstable now that we've invaded. And the war in Iraq only created a fertile ground for Islamic State to rise from the ashes. Remember what Colin Powell said: "you break it, you bought it". We broke it and have utterly failed to repair the damage done. Back to you, goatlover, define "win" in these scenarios and tell me about the victories that have "won" these wars.
- goatlover 10y ago
  When I think of winning wars, I think of one military defeating another, and the result being that the defeated government surrenders to the other, or is unable to continue waging war. I consider nation building to be separate from that, even though it involves military occupation. One can win the initial war, and lose the occupation, or at least fail to achieve stated objectives.
knowaveragejoe 10y ago
I don't think anyone has any illusions that the US lost militarily, but it's a bit disingenuous to only look at that part of the picture. The majority of expenses were on the occupation and nation-building efforts, which are a mixed bag as far as success is concerned.
- pstuart 10y ago
  > it's a bit disingenuous to only look at that part of the picture. The occupation and "nation-building" were effectively military efforts. And they've failed spectacularly. I'd be interested in the good parts of that mixed bag you mentioned. What good has come out of this other than defense contractor's profits?
  - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
    Some examples of the "good" are the massive amount of infrastructure that was built/re-built and the trade that was established with other countries. Don't mistake what I'm saying for a defense of the invasion of either country. Just trying to look at things objectively rather than through an emotional lens.