Is it possible?Economic collapse and War's brewing?

[Moe Canibo]

Didn't you Americans get beaten by starving illiterate 80 pounder peasants wielding bamboo sticks? Just sayin'.

 

[TorontoReign]

You overestimate Irans antiquated military. We don't have to use our Army to fight them. We can pound them into submission with air strikes due to their lackluster air force. They pose no threat to the US. The United States Navy controls the oceans of the world with it's allies, or without them for that matter

riiiight. We heard that a few times in the past. No threat. Easy to win. Bombing them to hell. I guess Vietnam never happened. Why going that far back even?

How have been things going in Afghanistan lately? Or Iraq ? I see they are great prospering nations now compared to before the wars !

I am not thinking here about the military power of Iran in particular. But even the US with all its military and size is not some nation with unlimited resources. In political and military sense. Each son which did not managed to come home is one issue more for any politician which voted for any potential war with the Iran. And the issue here is sure not to "win" any military operation. The issue always comes what to do once those are over.

Again. It would be better for the US to not do the same mistakes like in Iraq and Afghanistan again. They bomb those places and leave shit holes for centuries to come and they don't expect new problems to grow there for them ? Terrorism or "anti americanism" will find the best breeding ground in areas which are poor and without any stability. Particularly if those situations have been directly or indirectly caused by the US. Bombing a nation into oblivion usually was never a solution. There are way to many examples out there where it didn't helped (in the long run).

It's a lot cheaper to just bomb them from the air and then not do any nation building.

And thats going to make things better how ? Bombing alone will sure not stop the ambitions of Iran to get their hands on nuclear weapons if that is what the US (and the rest of the world) want to avoid. Quite the opposite I think. The more the US is threatening the Iran with military actions the more likely is it that they will push their nuclear program and/or answer with actions from their side (like closing the trading route). Even if it is just not to lose their face.

You are working off of the assumption that it was ever about winning the "War's" in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The United States does not need to "Win" wars with countries like Vietnam and Iran, they only need to destabilize them to maintain the balance of power. The United States is not invincible by any means, and no nation ever will be , but Iran is no great threat to the US. What is Iran going to do? Besides a terrorist attack on the US, what can Iran do right now? Are they going to send their Navy halfway around the world to attack us? Are they going to shoot us with missiles that can barely reach the seaboard? Sure they can attack Israel, but how does that hurt the US really? Even if Iran had nukes, do you think they will ever have MORE nukes than the US? Iran is dangerous to the Middle East, and they may fund terrorism, but as a nation they are not a major threat to America.

You are right about America bombing Iraq and Afghanistan and leaving them as shitholes. You say the US should expect terrorists to pop up! What are they thinking you say! That IS what they are thinking! If the Middle East is kept in check by US allies like Kuwait, Turkey, Israel, etc... and the remainder are squabbling with each other and blowing themselves up, then they do your job for you. The other day I saw on the web that Al Qaeda claimed a recent terrorist attack that claimed about 200 lives in Iraq. The things is no US troops were killed. So basically Al Qaeda did the United States a favor. Controlled Anarchy.

Move into a country that has resources you desire. Instigate general disarray , so no one can organize to resist. Lay claim to many of it's resources, give them access to US trade, and install a puppet leadership. Make enemy fight itself, and keep a constant state of panic. Rinse and Repeat.

This is the way the world has worked for hundreds of years. Only after the fact do we ever learn the truth. That area has been consistently destabilized, subjugated, and looted for a couple thousand of years. Iran is the weak link out of the nations in that area. Look at all the problems in the Middle East right now- Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the list goes on. It was all engineered to happen, and will continue to happen. The United States looks like a Democracy, but it acts more like a Empire, but so did the French, British, Roman, and German Nations at certain times in history. It comes down to the United States still being a immature nation as a whole, it bullies those it can, takes what it can from others, and gets pissed when you don't like it. That being said I love my country, and can't say I support what it does all the time, but every country is run by stupid people, and that will never change. But like anything else, that is just my opinion, and everyone is entitled their own.



@ Moe Canibo: Did anyone ever doubt that the US would leave Vietnam? Did we ever really leave totally? I like to think we continue to smuggle large amounts of their drugs, like we do in Afghanistan, into the US from their country and profit immensely. The United States picks sides often in order to stop any one group from gaining power. The USSR was dangerous for the US and took up years of their attention, as did most Communist nations like North Korea and Vietnam. The US "apparently" feared a Communist alliance and did it's best to destabilize ANY effort at growing communist states. Did the US really lose Vietnam? How do you determine a win or loss in war? Is it by total casualties amassed, or the long term effects it has on the region, and the involved parties? What are the ulterior motives behind the wars? People always have ulterior motives, and it would be wise to understand that.

Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, were all Communist "fear driven" campaigns. The United States public became so terrified of Communists, and were told that nuclear war was on the horizon. The US has often used these kinds of tactics to go to war, but they aren't the only ones. The Vietnam war was started due to false evidence to begin with, so that goes to show the real intentions of the government.

 

[Crni Vuk]

so the war in Vietnam was a win ? Sure. lets revert history here.

The US leadership moved with clear targets in to the vietnam conflict. Same with Afghanistan and Iraq. And they did not achieved their targets in Vietnam. destabilizing the North on the cost of the South ? Their target was to prevent the South becoming a communist part of the North. And with that they failed hard. Now I am not a professional-vietnam-history-buff. But its quite obvious that the US did not achieved any of their goals in Vietnam. So it is fair to say that they got defeated there.

And I would not be surprised if similar situations happen in Afghanistan and the Iraq. Tell me. What is going to happen once all US forces move out from Afghanistan and Iraq ? Will those nations follow their "path" to democracy ? If not then why have they deployed any troops there in the first place. If either Afghanistan or the Iraq starts to become again a very unstable region then one can say that the US leadership again failed to achieve their goals.

 

[TorontoReign]

so the war in Vietnam was a win ? Sure. lets revert history here.

The US leadership moved with clear targets in to the vietnam conflict. Same with Afghanistan and Iraq. And they did not achieved their targets in Vietnam. destabilizing the North on the cost of the South ? Their target was to prevent the South becoming a communist part of the North. And with that they failed hard. Now I am not a professional-vietnam-history-buff. But its quite obvious that the US did not achieved any of their goals in Vietnam. So it is fair to say that they got defeated there.

And I would not be surprised if similar situations happen in Afghanistan and the Iraq. Tell me. What is going to happen once all US forces move out from Afghanistan and Iraq ? Will those nations follow their "path" to democracy ? If not then why have they deployed any troops there in the first place. If either Afghanistan or the Iraq starts to become again a very unstable region then one can say that the US leadership again failed to achieve their goals.

I think you miss the point. Just because the US said "We are doing this" does not mean that was their real goal. Look at it like a game of chess. Sometimes you have to sacrifice pieces for the final outcome. You don't let the other guy know your intentions even after you win. You keep that strategy so you can use it next time.

If the US said, " We are going to randomly start wars to control other parts of the world", people would be pissed and raise hell, but if you say, " These are bad guys. They want to take your freedom" , everyone cheers, the trumpets play, and they play the patriot card. Now I'm not saying that is the only reason for the wars, but there are ulterior motives as always.

The funny thing about Afghanistan is that we supplied everything they have. We supplied Korea and still do to this day. We supply Iraq before AND after we destroy their country. We attempt to destabilize Cuba without anyone ever knowing about it, then attempt to overthrow their government and elect a puppet leader. We get involved in minor conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo for what?
We intervene in other countries affairs on a regular basis. I think Team America World Police had it right

There is a difference between what the military strategy is and what other's strategy may be. Is the military the only one involved in war? Private companies like KBR and Blackwater?
Is the CIA completely upfront with it's psyops and spy intelligence.

Here are two quotes which say it best:

In the Afghan war, the Taliban win only when they return to power; the U.S wins as long as they stop this from happening. From this perspective, the U.S. can ostensibly lose the war and still win it.

George Friedman has said that America’s essential military goal, in its modern wars, has been defensive – not necessarily to vanquish its enemies but to stop them, or delay them, from winning. Because of this, American victories can look a lot like defeats.

But what do I know? I only repeat what I read ......

 

[Sander]

So you're basically saying the US entered a war, lost some 60,000 soldiers (and some 300,000 wounded), created massive domestic conflict, a massive budget deficit and ensuing economic problems, international embarrassment and succeeded only in delaying the takeover of a communist regime in Vietnam by a few years - and that was their goal?

If so, the US really needs to work on setting some higher expectations for themselves, because that's fucking embarrassing.

 

[TorontoReign]

So you're basically saying the US entered a war, lost some 60,000 soldiers (and some 300,000 wounded), created massive domestic conflict, a massive budget deficit and ensuing economic problems, international embarrassment and succeeded only in delaying the takeover of a communist regime in Vietnam by a few years - and that was their goal?

If so, the US really needs to work on setting some higher expectations for themselves, because that's fucking embarrassing.

No I'm not saying that. Of course everything did not go according to plan. The French were involved before the US was to begin with, and they were beaten badly as we all know. Supposedly the United States was taking a stand against Communism, but that wasn't the only reason. People often forget about the large amounts of resources that Vietnam is on top of. The Opium trade is even more profitable. I am not denying the fact that the US got their asses kicked in Vietnam. I am simply saying that it did nothing to hurt the US in the long term. It's effects won't be felt 200 years from now. It isn't like it stopped us from going to war since then. War is good business, but America has fucked up priorities a lot of the time. I just feel like the "real" reasons we go to war are not always obvious. Everyone hated the government during Vietnam, and many protested, but what really happened after that? Everyone complained, called the troops baby killers, and then they moved on. Now the vets pay the price, but the rest of the country moves on. The government got away with it, so ultimately they were shown this:

We can have a war for no real reason and get away with it. People will bitch a lot, but when it comes down to it, they are powerless. If people feel threatened they will be for war, but once the war drags on the fear wears off.

Think about World War 2. FDR wanted the US to get pulled into the war. He was corresponding with Churchhill for months, but the US wanted to stay isolated. Pearl Harbor changed that. But why did Japan attack us? Because we completely cut off their access to the ocean trade routes. They would be unable to survive a few months without imports. But everyone made the Japanese out to be evil psychos. It wasn't until years later that we learned what happened behind-the-scenes.

 

[Moe Canibo]

How ever you try to spin it, they lost it, and it's not like it was a partial loss, it was a complete and utter failure and that is quite quantifiable.

 

[TorontoReign]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/09/china-us-careful-defence-strategy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/10/china-slowdown-fall-import-growth

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/jan/06/us-military-deployment-map

Lots of stuff going on in that part of the world right now.

 

[Walpknut]

Shiat, Obama looks like 20 years older than when he started in that photo.

 

[TorontoReign]

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20120107.aspx

This is a good article about the current situation with Iran.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think you miss the point. Just because the US said "We are doing this" does not mean that was their real goal. Look at it like a game of chess. Sometimes you have to sacrifice pieces for the final outcome. You don't let the other guy know your intentions even after you win. You keep that strategy so you can use it next time.

Missing the point ? Well obviously I have no fucking clue what either Johnson or Mc Nama thought when they decided to get involved in Nam (though just to say this Namara later thought he did pretty much everything wrong with his deicsions for the War and felt responsible for all the deaths) or what the Senators thought when they signed the Tonkin-Resolution.

All I can do is reading sources which tell me the "official" statements by the administration/people which have been in power at that time. And the idea as how they explained it was not to only postpone communism. From what I get the idea was to get completely rid of any communistic influence and if possible from North Vietnam.

And when I think about the propaganda which was used before the resolution I don't think it was wrong to assume that they had that target.

[spoiler:5254782f49]

[/spoiler:5254782f49]

Though if you have different sources which back up your "claims" then you should feel free to share those with us.

So you're basically saying the US entered a war, lost some 60,000 soldiers (and some 300,000 wounded), created massive domestic conflict, a massive budget deficit and ensuing economic problems, international embarrassment and succeeded only in delaying the takeover of a communist regime in Vietnam by a few years - and that was their goal?

If so, the US really needs to work on setting some higher expectations for themselves, because that's fucking embarrassing.

If that would be true though it would have been even worse then their "real official reasons". Losing 60 000 soldiers only for a "delay" ?

Of course everything did not go according to plan.

Pretty much nothing did go with their plans. The US achieved none of their goals in the Vietnam area compard to the war in Korea for example where they at least achieved to hold the "status quo" in the end. With Vietnam they pretty much lost everything. Seriously now. It has a reason why the Vietnam war had such impact in the perception of the US americans and why it left such a huge echo in their history. Even in Korea where they have only achieved a "seace fire" the politicans and general public felt like winners in the war (the chinese and N-Koreans felt as well like the winners by the way ...). Partialy because Mc Arthur managed to pretty much save the whole Korean front with his operations - seriously he became almost untouchable after the battle of Inchon. In the long run the US achieved their goal to secure the South Korean peninsula and retain the original borders. Vietnam was a full scale "defeat" for the US forces and politics.

The French were involved before the US was to begin with, and they were beaten badly as we all know.

This alone should have told the US to keep out from Nam. Nothing good came ever out of situations where colonialism was involved. Neither in Africa nor in Asia. The less western forces got involved in such places the better. Obviously in situations where they had already troops deployed they had to react (Korean war). But Vietnam was a french affair. And the US did not knew much about that location either.




History has many of such examples. And what we see today by European and US forces (more or less) with Afghanistan or Iraq is a "new" form of Colonialism.

 

[TorontoReign]

I understand where you are coming from Crni. If you go off of the official statement of the Iraq War you would be pretty confused though. We went to war with Iraq why? I mean we all know why they "Said" we went to war, but what was the real reason? Was it because of 911, or was it for resources? Was it because of terrorists, or was it for more hidden purposes? I wonder what the "History" books will have to say about it?

I know what the official statements usually say are half-truths and propaganda. Many things are kept from us, and the truth is not always apparent. The official story is only half the story. I am not saying that some grandiose conspiracy is at work, but the governments of the world have certain agendas, and they will do whatever it takes to accomplish those agendas. Many believe that the only reason we went to war with Vietnam was to show to Russia that we were committed to stop Communism. I think there are numerous reasons, but I think the official reason is bullshit personally.

I have been reading a lot of George Friedman mostly. I find some of his views to be outrageous, but he seems to have many interesting ideas. The link below explains why a war in Asia from overseas is a bad idea. I advise anyone interested to read George Friedman's book "The Next hundred Years", and keep an open mind. Many of his views are unconventional and some are outright wrong, but he is dead-on in many respects.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/03/01/never_fight_a_land_war_in_asia_99418.html

Friedman thinks that ultimately Vietnam and Iraq will have no long-term consequences for the US, but i am not completely sure. I think once the last Vietnam vets die you won't hear about it as much.
50 years from now Vietnam and Iraq will be a memory, and new conflicts will take precedence. Vietnam is remembered mostly because of it's massive casualties and unpopularity, but it is also remembered because thousands of vets walk around and constantly remind us of it. When those vets are gone the memories will simply be history, and history always slants towards certain viewpoints.


My main complaint with Friedman is his American-centric focus on the world. I don't think the world revolves around the US, but coming from some people you would think so. I am almost ashamed to be American sometimes because of the way certain people represent us, and the priorites Americans have in life.

You mean our "Freedom" is being taken away for "Security"? They can come into our house and take us to jail because they "SAY" you are a terrorist? The US is declaring war on countries for no good reason? Hmmm....what's on American Idol tonight?

 

[Crni Vuk]

except that we are not only talking about vietnam alone. It is the number of recent conflicts. Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Iran as well ? Who knows. Not a good evolution because it leaves the midle east even more unstable in the end giving even more room for terrorism.

And yeah today vietnam is not really important anymore. If it would be we might not have seen Afghanistan or Iraq happen. But people simply forget way to easily.

 

[TorontoReign]

except that we are not only talking about vietnam alone. It is the number of recent conflicts. Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Iran as well ? Who knows. Not a good evolution because it leaves the midle east even more unstable in the end giving even more room for terrorism.

And yeah today vietnam is not really important anymore. If it would be we might not have seen Afghanistan or Iraq happen. But people simply forget way to easily.

It's easy for people to forget if they have not had to sacrifice anything.

 

[Sub-Human]

Saying Vietnam was thought to show the Union that communism is a threat to be stopped or 911 an excuse for a resource war is stupid.

Seriously, why sacrifice so much money for a goal as simple as that? Waste human lifes and effort? No way, pals.

Either it's too dumb or too clever, but it's still stupid.

 

[TorontoReign]

Saying Vietnam was thought to show the Union that communism is a threat to be stopped or 911 an excuse for a resource war is stupid.

Seriously, why sacrifice so much money for a goal as simple as that? Waste human lifes and effort? No way, pals.

Either it's too dumb or too clever, but it's still stupid.

Yeah you are probably right. No one has ever wasted human lives for their own selfish ambitions.

 

[Moe Canibo]

C'mon Rayne. I clogged my toilet. No, there are two options as to why i did it. The first is, i clogged it because i violently dumped a huge concrete turd. The second is, i did it on purpose, because when the turd eventually goes through and makes it's way to the sewers it will clean the rust from the inside of the pipes with it's rugged concrete structure. Wich one is 99% likely to be true?

 

[Crni Vuk]

just because it is gross the comparison has not to fit.

 

[TorontoReign]

C'mon Rayne. I clogged my toilet. No, there are two options as to why i did it. The first is, i clogged it because i violently dumped a huge concrete turd. The second is, i did it on purpose, because when the turd eventually goes through and makes it's way to the sewers it will clean the rust from the inside of the pipes with it's rugged concrete structure. Wich one is 99% likely to be true?

Well said my good man.

 

[Sub-Human]

Saying Vietnam was thought to show the Union that communism is a threat to be stopped or 911 an excuse for a resource war is stupid.

Seriously, why sacrifice so much money for a goal as simple as that? Waste human lifes and effort? No way, pals.

Either it's too dumb or too clever, but it's still stupid.

Yeah you are probably right. No one has ever wasted human lives for their own selfish ambitions.

Nevertheless, it's just stupid. It's much more of a pain in the ass to spend your countless resources and then have to justify all of your actions in front of a multimillionare nation, instead of, well, sticking a poster on every corner or something.