When did the US stop being good at war?

[mudwhistle]

We don't win, when it is not a Just War, in the first place.

when it is Just War, then we put all of our power and might in to winning, quickly and deadly.

We tip toe around in wars that never met Just War Theory criteria....because we know we should not be involved in the first place, and are just playing police....thus the tip toeing....don't want to hurt innocents...

In Just War, you KNOW your end, before you begin it and you must know, that the people in the Nation you are warring with, will be better off than they were previous to the war in near every manner....otherwise it is NOT just war....not a war worth fighting.

Keep raising the bar and pretty soon no war is just.

 

[Disir]

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime example

Because Kuwait was drilling sideways.

Oh, so that's different.

It's cool. Invade your neighbors, kill their people, steal all of their shit, just because you think they were drilling sideways.

The US had a vested interest. There was no love, peace and chicken grease here as much as you wish otherwise.

 

[Disir]

Big US oil drilling firm being bought by Kuwait - CSMonitor.com

^^^It's where they got the technology from.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Concerning the so-called 'Islamic State' and the various factions in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, we are dealing with civilian insurgents, not regular military forces of a recognized country that will observe acknowledged 'rules of war.'

There is no 'war' no 'enemy soldiers,' and no 'enemy army,' there are only civilian terrorists and criminals who do not adhere to conventional military tactics – and they need to be dealt with as civilian terrorists and criminals.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Once people actually saw the pictures of what we were doing, people didnt like "winning no matter what" because the "no matter what" wasnt tangible

 

[G.T.]

We don't win, when it is not a Just War, in the first place.

when it is Just War, then we put all of our power and might in to winning, quickly and deadly.

We tip toe around in wars that never met Just War Theory criteria....because we know we should not be involved in the first place, and are just playing police....thus the tip toeing....don't want to hurt innocents...

In Just War, you KNOW your end, before you begin it and you must know, that the people in the Nation you are warring with, will be better off than they were previous to the war in near every manner....otherwise it is NOT just war....not a war worth fighting.

Keep raising the bar and pretty soon no war is just.

Humans have a lot of decision to make concerning war. Its 2015. It should be obsolete as a species by now, but we still have radical retard jihadis living in caves.

They need to smoke mushrooms.

 

[mudwhistle]

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime example

Because Kuwait was drilling sideways.

Oh, so that's different.

It's cool. Invade your neighbors, kill their people, steal all of their shit, just because you think they were drilling sideways.

The US had a vested interest. There was no love, peace and chicken grease here as much as you wish otherwise.

No shit.

Now tell me something I don't know.
I've been in Kuwait.

 

[mudwhistle]

We don't win, when it is not a Just War, in the first place.

when it is Just War, then we put all of our power and might in to winning, quickly and deadly.

We tip toe around in wars that never met Just War Theory criteria....because we know we should not be involved in the first place, and are just playing police....thus the tip toeing....don't want to hurt innocents...

In Just War, you KNOW your end, before you begin it and you must know, that the people in the Nation you are warring with, will be better off than they were previous to the war in near every manner....otherwise it is NOT just war....not a war worth fighting.

Keep raising the bar and pretty soon no war is just.

Humans have a lot of decision to make concerning war. Its 2015. It should be obsolete as a species by now, but we still have radical retard jihadis living in caves.

They need to smoke mushrooms.

Eat mushrooms and smoke weed...

 

[G.T.]

We don't win, when it is not a Just War, in the first place.

when it is Just War, then we put all of our power and might in to winning, quickly and deadly.

We tip toe around in wars that never met Just War Theory criteria....because we know we should not be involved in the first place, and are just playing police....thus the tip toeing....don't want to hurt innocents...

In Just War, you KNOW your end, before you begin it and you must know, that the people in the Nation you are warring with, will be better off than they were previous to the war in near every manner....otherwise it is NOT just war....not a war worth fighting.

Keep raising the bar and pretty soon no war is just.

Humans have a lot of decision to make concerning war. Its 2015. It should be obsolete as a species by now, but we still have radical retard jihadis living in caves.

They need to smoke mushrooms.

Eat mushrooms and smoke weed...

Drink weed and snort mushrooms.

Lol

Nah im not sure snorting is a way shrooms can work.

Anyway, if religion wasnt here these hive minded bed sheet wearing dirt toed mongrels who think its perfectly acceptable to war over bullshit......would just have another excuse.

The real key is either letting them do them until it interferes with us from time to time.....or an entirely slick minded reeducation platform designed over the course of a year or two by some of the genius minds we have on this planet.

 

[Disir]

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime example

Because Kuwait was drilling sideways.

Oh, so that's different.

It's cool. Invade your neighbors, kill their people, steal all of their shit, just because you think they were drilling sideways.

The US had a vested interest. There was no love, peace and chicken grease here as much as you wish otherwise.

No shit.

Now tell me something I don't know.
I've been in Kuwait.

I don't give a fuck.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ob

Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime example

Because Kuwait was drilling sideways.

Oh, so that's different.

It's cool. Invade your neighbors, kill their people, steal all of their shit, just because you think they were drilling sideways.

The US had a vested interest. There was no love, peace and chicken grease here as much as you wish otherwise.

No shit.

Now tell me something I don't know.
I've been in Kuwait.

I don't give a fuck.

Obviously....

 

[Correll]

What is a right reason?

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

 

[Disir]

Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

 

[jillian]

US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?

The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.

US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.

But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?

In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.

Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.

you can't be "good at war" if the essential premise of the war is a bad one.

when daddy bush went into gulf 1, he was told that if he went into Baghdad, he would destabilize the region and it would all go kablooey. (not the actual technical term, obviously). he was smart enough to listen to his state department. when baby bush received the same advice, he was too stupid to listen and, instead, followed the neocon lunacy of the PNAC and cheney and friends.

 

[Meathead]

you can't be "good at war" if the essential premise of the war is a bad one.

What an idiotic premise. Do you actually think before you try to set down the absurd as a platitude.

 

[jillian]

you can't be "good at war" if the essential premise of the war is a bad one.

What an idiotic premise. Do you actually think before you try to set down the absurd as a platitude.

It's always funny when an idiot says I'm not thinking....especially when they can't dispute a single thing I said. Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I said. Here, let me say it in smaller words for you-- we had no business going into Iraq based on baby bush's lies.

Was that in small enough words for you?

Carry on.

 

[Meathead]

you can't be "good at war" if the essential premise of the war is a bad one.

What an idiotic premise. Do you actually think before you try to set down the absurd as a platitude.

It's always funny when an idiot says I'm not thinking....especially when they can't dispute a single thing I said. Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I said. Here, let me say it in smaller words for you-- we had no business going into Iraq based on baby bush's lies.

Was that in small enough words for you?

Carry on.

Stop with the dingbat stuff. "Can't be good at something because it's bad", FFS!

Do you think you're only dealing with people as stupid as yourself, seriously?

 

[regent]

I think the H-bomb slowed us and some others down a bit. I remember well driving to work during the Cuban missle crisis picking my cover in case I suddenly saw the huge flash of light.

 

[Correll]

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

What about protection of interests?

Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.

So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.

Thos einterests are private companies. If a company wants to put a facility abroad it's on them to ensure its' safety. Isn't a national security issue.

Sure as hell isn't me and my friends responsibility to protect it.

Not sure where you got the idea that "American interests" are all "Private companies".

As I said, if that is a rule, then you just declared open season on all American interests.

And you just told him that he should die for your financial interests and whatever little arbitrary mission pops in your head.

No, I pointed out that if his stance was national policy, then every enemy of the US would know that they could attack our national interests as much as they wanted as long as they did not directly threaten US soil.

 

[JoeB131]

It began when Democrats stopped allowing us to declare wars. This comes from some innate belief that this country, deep down, isn't good. From a belief that our enemies, that just want to murder all of us, are justified.

Uh, the Republicans controlled Congress in 2002. They could have declared War on Iraq if they really wanted to. Nothing was stopping them.