Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have the world's "baddest" (and most expensive) military that has been unable to win for a decade against a collection of illiterate rabble. Time to rethink our approach. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results.
Large military forces are used to fight against other large military forces.
Wars of occupation hardly ever go well. The only one I can think of working in recent history, would be the civil war.
Its one reason the Taliban beat the Russians in Afghanistan. Lots of places to hide, air support does you almost no good, and local intel on terrain is extremely important.
We are so used to the "bomb them back to the stone age" montra, to realize that they were already living in the stone age. Not much more bombing you can do.
The only way to really win a war like that, is to topple the unfriendly government, establish a government representative of the people, secure them with as much help as they ASK for, and then leave.
And thats only if the people want to get rid of the people in charge. They did with the Taliban, but after all of the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan, they hate us just as much as the Taliban now.
Its time to get out.
Its time to cut off the money to terrorist organizations, and if you find a "training camp" that we are fully justified in destroying it, no matter what country you are in, without your consent. We will warn you as the missile is on the way.
Wars are about money. Dwight Eisenhower knew a thing or two about wars. So did Smedley Butler. They probably would have both predicted that military spending would be at the levels they are at today, because they both knew the machinery of war runs on taxpayer funds, and that means war profiteering. All you need is an enemy. No better proof than Saddam Hussein exists.
None of them favored "isolationism." "Isolationism" is an epithet made up in the 1930s by witless interventionist liberals.
Japan from the beginning of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th was a country in true isolation. No American ever seriously advocated such a state of affairs.
What the founders advocated, and what many perspicacious Americans advocate today, is a policy of nonintervention and neutrality, at least in those cases that do not directly involve American interests.
Small fries in that link. Though they are just as bad as the real players. Wars and the military are funded with "debt" assumed by the warring nations. It is the "people" who collect "interests" on the imaginary "capital" of the "debt" of the nations who are the real players.
Follow the real profits and the real winners of every war to the higher level. Those companies in the link are little employees of the real enemies of all mankind. They win and profit from every war fought regardless of who dies or loses wars. It is the "Central Banks", money-changers, shylocks, and counterfeiters of fiat currency who are guaranteed victory every time no matter what happens. "Governments" and "businesses" are only servants of their masters. The dying humans in wars are only reduced "overhead" for the Money Cartel after they create or increase the "debt" for the "governments" to be perpetually enslaved.
Wars serve only one purpose. To create "debt" and a steadily growing slave operation to pay a perpetual "interest". "Allies" and "enemies" are both slaves of the same Masters.
Small fries in that link. Though they are just as bad as the real players. Wars and the military are funded with "debt" assumed by the warring nations. It is the "people" who collect "interests" on the imaginary "capital" of the "debt" of the nations who are the real players.
Follow the real profits and the real winners of every war to the higher level. Those companies in the link are little employees of the real enemies of all mankind. They win and profit from every war fought regardless of who dies or loses wars. It is the "Central Banks", money-changers, shylocks, and counterfeiters of fiat currency who are guaranteed victory every time no matter what happens. "Governments" and "businesses" are only servants of their masters. The dying humans in wars are only reduced "overhead" for the Money Cartel after they create or increase the "debt" for the "governments" to be perpetually enslaved.
Wars serve only one purpose. To create "debt" and a steadily growing slave operation to pay a perpetual "interest". "Allies" and "enemies" are both slaves of the same Masters.
The good old Rothchild Formula:
War is the ultimate discipline to any government. If it can successfully meet the challenge of war, it will survive. If it cannot, it will perish. All else is secondary. The sanctity of its laws, the prosperity of its citizens, and the solvency of it treasury will be quickly sacrificed by any government in its primal act of self-survival.
All that is necessary, therefore, to ensure that a government will maintain or expand its debt is to involve it in war or the threat of war. The greater the threat and the more destructive the war, the greater the need for debt.
To involve a country in war or the threat of war, it will be necessary for it to have enemies with credible military might. If such enemies already exist, all the better. If they exist but lack military strength, it will be necessary to provide them the money to build their war machine. If an enemy does not exist at all, then it will be necessary to create one by financing the rise of a hostile regime.
The ultimate obstacle is a government which declines to finance its wars through debt. Although this seldom happens, when it does, it will be necessary to encourage internal political opposition, insurrection, or revolution to replace that government with one that is more compliant to our will. The assassination of heads of state could play an important role in this process.
No nation can be allowed to remain militarily stronger than its adversaries, for that could lead to peace and a reduction of debt. To accomplish this balance of power, it may be necessary to finance both sides of the conflict. Unless one of the combatants is hostile to our interests and, therefore, must be destroyed, neither side should be allowed a decisive victory or defeat. While we must always proclaim the virtues of peace, the unspoken objective is perpetual war.
None of them favored "isolationism." "Isolationism" is an epithet made up in the 1930s by witless interventionist liberals.
Japan from the beginning of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th was a country in true isolation. No American ever seriously advocated such a state of affairs.
What the founders advocated, and what many perspicacious Americans advocate today, is a policy of nonintervention and neutrality, at least in those cases that do not directly involve American interests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
