0
KidWicked

Cost of war in Afghanistan

Recommended Posts

Quote

I think that if we don't get Afghanistan to the point where it can reasonably self-govern, it will become a terrorist training ground like none we've ever seen. There are still lots of ardent anti-Western Islamics all over the world. Currently, they have limited freedom to operate. If we give up on Afghanistan now, they'll move in and get to work. Once we leave it will twice as hard, and even more expensive, to go back. Either we fix it now, or we start saving up to reinvade in ten to twenty years.



Well, why not save a trillion dollars and take the 15 year break then? We could stay there forever and not succeed. Or we could leave for not and not succeed, and save thousands of lives and trillions of money we don't even have.

Knocking out the Taliban every few years is a lot easier than trying to occupy the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think that if we don't get Afghanistan to the point where it can reasonably self-govern, it will become a terrorist training ground like none we've ever seen. There are still lots of ardent anti-Western Islamics all over the world. Currently, they have limited freedom to operate. If we give up on Afghanistan now, they'll move in and get to work. Once we leave it will twice as hard, and even more expensive, to go back. Either we fix it now, or we start saving up to reinvade in ten to twenty years.



I'm sorry, Dan, but you will never persuade me that Afghanistan is "fixable"; it is only "occupiable". The net practical effect of what you propose is, quite frankly, permanent occupation. You're not alone in that group; well-intentioned senior military brass go before congressional committees and say the same thing. They don't persuade me, either.

I'm tired that the US, the most affluent nation in the world, is the only Western-style, major industrialized nation that - in the second decade of the 21st Century! - still does not have some manner of universal health care for everyone - in very large part because we pour all the money that would cost into the ever-ravenous military-industrial complex, rather than into our domestic social infrastructure. It's utterly disgraceful. It's worse than that: it's unforgivable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I think that if we don't get Afghanistan to the point where it can
>reasonably self-govern, it will become a terrorist training ground like none
>we've ever seen.

It has been that. It is that now. It will be that after we leave.

Our choices are permanent occupation, establishing US-friendly regimes, periodic invasions or letting them kill themselves. So far periodic invasions haven't worked. Establishing self-governing regimes hasn't worked. Of the remaining two, which do you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If we could engage in combat at a profit, I would be less opposed to resorting to warfare as a matter of course.



Now THERE is a tradition that conservatives can rally to. War is suppossed to be about the spoils of war.. the raping.. the pilaging...

Kill off all those R...head men... and sell off their women and children...

YEAH.. thats the ticket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If we could engage in combat at a profit, I would be less opposed to resorting to warfare as a matter of course.



Now THERE is a tradition that conservatives can rally to. War is suppossed to be about the spoils of war.. the raping.. the pilaging...

Kill off all those R...head men... and sell off their women and children...

YEAH.. thats the ticket.



Nah, women and children don't fetch enough to cover fuel costs for M-1 Abrams tanks and Hummvees, much less purchase costs for B-2s and so forth.

I was thinking more along the lines of a walk-through victory (you know, "mission accomplished..."), followed by Versailles-type reparations terms.

Since the oppressed people we have to set free don't tend to have a lot of money - and it would be immoral to starve the poor widows and orphans - we could accept, say, the black sticky stuff that threatens to pollute their desert environment. We are addicted to it, after all.

Of course they would agree to these terms out of gratititude for all we have done for them ("I never liked him anyway").


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The biggest objection I have to waging war is the cost involved. This cost includes turning nice kids into worm food or cripples, as well as squandering resources we simply cannot afford.



At what dollar limit do you say; "Screw it, freedom is too expensive, I would prefer to just live under tyranny." State your price.



I don't live in Afghanistan - so your infinite dollars concept is a lot like liberals saying that banning guns is good if it saves "just one child"

absolutes don't work when you don't get additional return for additional dollars - "buying" the freedom FOR another country is like "buying" education by throwing more money at it. especially for people that don't want what we are trying to get them to want


I'd rather hear your honest opinion on it than just seeing empty cliches. We can leave the emotionalism to the libs.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

If we could engage in combat at a profit, I would be less opposed to resorting to warfare as a matter of course.



Now THERE is a tradition that conservatives can rally to. War is suppossed to be about the spoils of war.. the raping.. the pilaging...

Kill off all those R...head men... and sell off their women and children...

YEAH.. thats the ticket.



Nah, women and children don't fetch enough to cover fuel costs for M-1 Abrams tanks and Hummvees, much less purchase costs for B-2s and so forth.

I was thinking more along the lines of a walk-through victory (you know, "mission accomplished..."), followed by Versailles-type reparations terms.

Since the oppressed people we have to set free don't tend to have a lot of money - and it would be immoral to starve the poor widows and orphans - we could accept, say, the black sticky stuff that threatens to pollute their desert environment. We are addicted to it, after all.

Of course they would agree to these terms out of gratititude for all we have done for them ("I never liked him anyway").


BSBD,

Winsor



I think you just reiterated the PNAC boys game plan.. funny how that did not work out quite the way they believed it was goingto go and as socialized to the world by Rummy and Dickie and Shrub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I am sick to death of people who try to come up with an endless of series of "kinder, gentler" words to describe whatever, only to have each successive term take on the exact connotations of the term it replaced.



And then in the very same post:

Quote

It pisses me off when someone medevaced after a firefight is described by some newscaster as "injured." A sucking chest wound is not an injury - it is a wound and there is a difference.



Why is it okay for you to be pissed off at "injured" but I can't be pissed off at "crippled"?

Quote

b.t.w., having beaten an iron lung and spent many months in a wheelchair and on crutches, I don't have to ask.



If you beat the iron lung and crutches, you aren't disabled, and don't know what it's like.

All bickering aside, welcome home and thanks.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The biggest objection I have to waging war is the cost involved. This cost includes turning nice kids into worm food or cripples, as well as squandering resources we simply cannot afford.



At what dollar limit do you say; "Screw it, freedom is too expensive, I would prefer to just live under tyranny." State your price.



If one is in debt than one is not free ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The biggest objection I have to waging war is the cost involved. This cost includes turning nice kids into worm food or cripples, as well as squandering resources we simply cannot afford.



At what dollar limit do you say; "Screw it, freedom is too expensive, I would prefer to just live under tyranny." State your price.



If one is in debt than one is not free ...



Would you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The biggest objection I have to waging war is the cost involved. This cost includes turning nice kids into worm food or cripples, as well as squandering resources we simply cannot afford.



At what dollar limit do you say; "Screw it, freedom is too expensive, I would prefer to just live under tyranny." State your price.



If one is in debt than one is not free ...



Would you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



In debt in a democratic state. Do you think we'll remain a democratic state when the interest on the debt is more than we had, have, or will have?
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Quote

Would you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



You really think there is even a remote chance that The US will one day be under Taliban rule?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WJ6FbcWYRU



If ultra conservatives had their way.. we would certainly have an analog here living in a blissfull American version all worshiping the Lord on Sundays and Wednesday evenings and getting all our laws handed down from the THEOCRATS in the National Cathedral in Washington DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



You really think there is even a remote chance that The US will one day be under Taliban rule?



Nope. Just trying to narrow down where people draw the line between in-debt freedom and debt-free tyranny.

And this thread isn't just about America, but also the same topic in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Would you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



You really think there is even a remote chance that The US will one day be under Taliban rule?



Nope. Just trying to narrow down where people draw the line between in-debt freedom and debt-free tyranny.

And this thread isn't just about America, but also the same topic in Iraq & Afghanistan.



Once again, do you think we'll remain a democratic state when the interest on the debt is more than we had, have, or will have? This is a more realistic question than the one you posed ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think that if we don't get Afghanistan to the point where it can reasonably self-govern, it will become a terrorist training ground like none we've ever seen. There are still lots of ardent anti-Western Islamics all over the world. Currently, they have limited freedom to operate. If we give up on Afghanistan now, they'll move in and get to work. Once we leave it will twice as hard, and even more expensive, to go back. Either we fix it now, or we start saving up to reinvade in ten to twenty years.



Afghanistan has often been referred to as "the country where empires goe to die".
The Soviets tried to conquer the territory and went belly up in a large part because of the drain from that war.
The last sucessful invader who really had control over the area was Alexander the Great and he only maintained control for 3 years.

Afganistan had self government before we invaded. It was governed by the Taliban and apparently (from my view in the cheap seats) they had/ have strong support among the population.


Seems that both the Clinton and Bush administrations liked them pretty well also ,as they were courting, wineing and dining them like you or I would a big titted blonde.
Seems the Obama administration must like them pretty well also as they are presently lapping at the chance to negotiate with them.

Thing is the Taliban has done a pretty good job of surviving for ten years the present invasion and have even been able to at times give as good as they get.

Afgahans will surely self rule without US intervention.
That's not the question or why we've spent all this gold and blood.
The question is will a self governing Afghanistan be favorable to the situations the US wants.

Peace,
JimB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[replyWould you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



Let's start off remembering that none of us probably wants to live in a democracry(three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu).

What the Founding Fathers left us was a "constitutional republic" . A form of government where the whims of the majority are reigned in by the rule of Law.

Since the start of the war the law has been changed so that many of our Rights are no longer recognized by the US government.

It's not so much a matter of would you rather be living in debt in a free society or without debt under Taliban rule.
The question should be ; You are living under a government run by corporations, banks, and big business where your Rights are not recognized. This government privatizes the profits but socializes the debt of these corporations . You are forced to pay a portion of your wages to hide the criminality of the bankers. You are also forced to pay a portion of your wages to support the military industrial complex and their foreign profit schemes which are the cause of tremendous loss of life, limb, mental stability and the destruction of infrastructures. You are forced to pay a portion of your wages to house the largest population of incarcerated nonviolent offenders in the world.
What can we do about it.
How can we bring about positive change?

But hey, It's your question.
Ask itfrom under what ever veil of ignorance you wish.

Peace,
Jim B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[replyWould you rather be in-debt in a democratic state, or debt-free living under the Taliban?



Let's start off remembering that none of us probably wants to live in a democracry(three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu).

What the Founding Fathers left us was a "constitutional republic" . A form of government where the whims of the majority are reigned in by the rule of Law.

Since the start of the war the law has been changed so that many of our Rights are no longer recognized by the US government.

It's not so much a matter of would you rather be living in debt in a free society or without debt under Taliban rule.
The question should be ; You are living under a government run by corporations, banks, and big business where your Rights are not recognized. This government privatizes the profits but socializes the debt of these corporations . You are forced to pay a portion of your wages to hide the criminality of the bankers. You are also forced to pay a portion of your wages to support the military industrial complex and their foreign profit schemes which are the cause of tremendous loss of life, limb, mental stability and the destruction of infrastructures. You are forced to pay a portion of your wages to house the largest population of incarcerated nonviolent offenders in the world.
What can we do about it.
How can we bring about positive change?

But hey, It's your question.
Ask itfrom under what ever veil of ignorance you wish.

Peace,
Jim B



Geez this is one of those times I can agree with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites