Jump to content
mugtang

This is why the United States is broke

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, mugtang said:

I don’t think Saddam was our problem though plus he was a stabilizing force against Iran.  Iraq was all personal for Bush.  A complete waste of blood and treasure.  

I do agree Iraq was personal for Bush. Saddam had previously put an assassination hit on his dad, and W really wanted his head on a platter for that, among other things.

However, Bush just couldn’t order an invasion and got Congress and the UN involved. The House approved the invasion 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. That’s 70% of the House and 77% of the Senate. Ultimately, Bush, Powell, Congress, etc. were victims of bad intelligence. Without that intel, we would’ve never gone. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lester_in_reno said:

Nobody has ever won anything in Afghanistan. It's impossible.

Google: First Anglo - Afghanistan war 1840.

Then Google : Sykes - Piicot agreement.

WTF?????  How are you defining a “win”? Are you saying we’ve been defeated in Afghanistan? We’ve done nothing but win there. We operate in that country at will, and have never been driven out such as the Soviets were.

But remember, we were also helping Bin Ladden and Co. drive out the Soviets big time. Without our help, it wouldn’t have happened. And as we all know, the extra weapons that weren’t used on the Soviets ended up being used on us. But we prevailed anyway. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

I’m sure Russia would agree. 

They invaded easily and held it for 9 years. It became a big pain in the ass to hold it when we began to supply big time tactical weapons to them such as the shoulder fired missiles that the freedom fighters used to destroy convoys with supplies in the mountains and used to shoot down Soviet helicopters. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

WTF?????  How are you defining a “win”? Are you saying we’ve been defeated in Afghanistan? We’ve done nothing but win there. We operate in that country at will, and have never been driven out such as the Soviets were.

But remember, we were also helping Bin Ladden and Co. drive out the Soviets big time. Without our help, it wouldn’t have happened. And as we all know, the extra weapons that weren’t used on the Soviets ended up being used on us. But we prevailed anyway. 

If you think we’ve “won” or are “winning” in Afghanistan, you’re even more retarded than I originally assumed. The Taliban have NOT been defeated and are using the so called Afghani military as target practice of late, killing hundres of their “soldiers” per month. 

  • Like 2

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, toonkee said:

Think about the power vacuum that was created by taking out Hussein. The refugees, migrations and the subsequent nationalism and Brexit and border walls...and god knows what else down the pipe. 

Not only that, but using the same amount of time, people, money, and resources as in the Iraq War, we could have reduced the homelessness problem in Fresno by at least 30%. 

  • Haha 2

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Not only that, but using the same amount of time, people, money, and resources as in the Iraq War, we could have reduced the homelessness problem in Fresno by at least 30%. 

That number seems aggressive but point taken.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lester_in_reno said:

Nobody has ever won anything in Afghanistan. It's impossible.

Google: First Anglo - Afghanistan war 1840.

Then Google : Sykes - Piicot agreement.

The Mongols would laugh heartily at your assertion

  • Haha 1

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, happycamper said:

The Mongols would laugh heartily at your assertion

You are correct in that there is a way to effectively conquer Afghanistan .. and that would indeed be the Mongol method, completely sans of "winning hearts and minds." Basically, savagely obliterate any and all opposition while not taking prisoners under any circumstance except to torture and kill or brutally leverage in some way down the road. Only allow those who didn't put up a resistance to survive, regardless of gender or age. Then turn the day to day operations over to a puppet to manage somewhat autonomously and in line with the local ethos as long as taxes get paid to the Khan. 

  • Like 1

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You are correct in that there is a way to effectively conquer Afghanistan .. and that would indeed be the Mongol method, completely sans of "winning hearts and minds." Basically, savagely obliterate any and all opposition while not taking prisoners under any circumstance except to torture and kill or brutally leverage in some way down the road. Only allow those who didn't put up a resistance to survive, regardless of gender or age. Then turn the day to day operations over to a puppet to manage somewhat autonomously and in line with the local ethos as long as taxes get paid to the Khan. 

So it is agreed! Take the total population of Afghanistan, A, multiply by the probable rate of resistance fighter, B, multiply by the average cost of brutal massacre, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than $5.9 trillion, we change policies.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mugtang said:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-15/us-has-spent-5900000000000-war-2001

We’ve spent $5.9 trillion on war since 2001.  

Yep.  Remember when Cheney fired the head of the OMB because he dared to suggest that the Iraq debacle would cost $200M instead of $50M.  If only.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

I do agree Iraq was personal for Bush. Saddam had previously put an assassination hit on his dad, and W really wanted his head on a platter for that, among other things.

However, Bush just couldn’t order an invasion and got Congress and the UN involved. The House approved the invasion 296-133 and the Senate 77-23. That’s 70% of the House and 77% of the Senate. Ultimately, Bush, Powell, Congress, etc. were victims of bad intelligence. Without that intel, we would’ve never gone. 

They weren't victims of bad intelligence.  The United States and the world were victims of a weak and corrupt CIA that pandered their conclusions to the conclusions that the administration wanted to present.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Victor Maitlin said:

Yep.  Remember when Cheney fired the head of the OMB because he dared to suggest that the Iraq debacle would cost $200M instead of $50M.  If only.

I wish it had only cost 200M.  Shit, 200B would’ve been great!

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

So it is agreed! Take the total population of Afghanistan, A, multiply by the probable rate of resistance fighter, B, multiply by the average cost of brutal massacre, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than $5.9 trillion, we change policies.

Essentially this:

giphy.gif

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

So it is agreed! Take the total population of Afghanistan, A, multiply by the probable rate of resistance fighter, B, multiply by the average cost of brutal massacre, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than $5.9 trillion, we change policies.

The math adds up. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I wish it had only cost 200M.  Shit, 200B would’ve been great!

My bad.  Billions, not millions.  And yes, 200B and half a million non-dead civilians would have been great.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The three thousand deaths from 9/11 turned into 7,000 deaths thx2 the pvssyfooting we did trying to placate the international commy-unity.

There is no point for a country to engage in war if that country is not going to identify the enemy they are fighting.

There was only one effective way to respond to 9/11: vaporize Afghanistan. Then ask Pakistan, Iran, et al "Any questions going forward?!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Extra Mayo said:

The three thousand deaths from 9/11 turned into 7,000 deaths thx2 the pvssyfooting we did trying to placate the international commy-unity.

There is no point for a country to engage in war if that country is not going to identify the enemy they are fighting.

There was only one effective way to respond to 9/11: vaporize Afghanistan. Then ask Pakistan, Iran, et al "Any questions going forward?!"

 

 

Great.  Then I eagerly await the justified vaporizing of Dallas, Atlanta, LA, NYC and Chicago by the Chileans, Argentinians, Iranians, Cambodians, Iraqis, Yemenis, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Indonesians and the countless other countries that this nation has reigned terror down upon.  3,000 dead innocents?  That's a good month for this country.

  • Like 1

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Victor Maitlin said:

Great.  Then I eagerly await the justified vaporizing of Dallas, Atlanta, LA, NYC and Chicago by the Chileans, Argentinians, Iranians, Cambodians, Iraqis, Yemenis, Nicaraguans, Guatemalans, Indonesians and the countless other countries that this nation has reigned terror down upon.  3,000 dead innocents?  That's a good month for this country.

Why do you hate America? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...