TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Wars Cost $4 TRILLION!!
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by Syntonic If anyone plays the stocks, put all your money into bullets.

I would advise anyone to do the exact opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin I would advise anyone to do the exact opposite.

So you are saying bulletproof vests are the way to go?

You see ygrene, you buy the air around the bullets and charge a bullet displacement access fee. Not only can you get rich, but you can also sell the users private info for millions. Just think about it, every AK with plug and play usb capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin I would advise anyone to do the exact opposite.

Put bullets into money?

quote:

Originally posted by Syntonic PBS NewsHour gives a concise, non-bias view of global issues.

Putting all your money into bullets is about the worst thing you can do. That said, I'm just nit picking someone else's post.

Exactly; the shelling and fill machinery is a much better investment.

BUG-OUT BAG!

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Stalin Putting all your money into bullets is about the worst thing you can do. That said, I'm just nit picking someone else's post.

You aren't investing in bullets for money, its the return the investment makes on others that is the best part.

Re: Wars Cost $4 TRILLION!!

The war may cost 4 trillion but that is far cheaper than the cost of not fighting these wars. That's right, I'm talking about freedom. If these wars didn't happen I wouldn't have the freedom to operate my oversized SUV at an unsafe speed while cranking up the air conditioner and dumping oil out of my open windows like it's a mother fucking episode of Mario Cart. I wouldn't have the freedom to call every towel head a towel head if these wars never happened and an entire portion of the world and sect of religion became demonized, and you just know those ******s deserve it. Living in the sand like some Southern California without having to pay those outrageous rents. Damn straight this war was a good idea. If it wasn't for this war my brothers think tank would have to be thinking up ways to destroy some country in South America. South America?! I get my cigars from there! We need to fight these wars to save my cigar.

I still think the US has every right to be in afghanistan. Whether they�re achieving much is debatable, but waging war was the right thing to do imo.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I still think the US has every right to be in afghanistan. Whether they�re achieving much is debatable, but waging war was the right thing to do imo.

How much longer do they get to stay there exactly?10 years?20 years?50 years? Forever? What is their purpose in Afghanistan in 2011?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer How much longer do they get to stay there exactly?10 years?20 years?50 years? Forever?

Do you watch the news at all you fuckwit? They're already beginning to scale down occupation of the country to focus more on special operations missions and unmanned operations. THEY'RE TOTALLY GONNA STAY THERE FOREVER THOUGH LOL!

You do realize that the type of war being fought in Afghanistan would be like another country invading the US and trying to kill or capture all of the registered Independent voters in the country? It's not as simple as "Oh look, there's one, shoot him!" They're fighting an idealism, not a country.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Do you watch the news at all you fuckwit? They're already beginning to scale down occupation of the country to focus more on special operations missions and unmanned operations. THEY'RE TOTALLY GONNA STAY THERE FOREVER THOUGH LOL!

Are you serious? You are so fucking naive kid. Where do you think they will send those troops after? What the fuck are these so called special operations you idiot? Does invading another country count as special operations to you? Lay off the crack bro seriously.

Re: Re: Wars Cost $4 TRILLION!!

quote:

Originally posted by gmilf The war may cost 4 trillion but that is far cheaper than the cost of not fighting these wars. That's right, I'm talking about freedom. If these wars didn't happen I wouldn't have the freedom to operate my oversized SUV at an unsafe speed while cranking up the air conditioner and dumping oil out of my open windows like it's a mother fucking episode of Mario Cart. I wouldn't have the freedom to call every towel head a towel head if these wars never happened and an entire portion of the world and sect of religion became demonized, and you just know those ******s deserve it. Living in the sand like some Southern California without having to pay those outrageous rents. Damn straight this war was a good idea. If it wasn't for this war my brothers think tank would have to be thinking up ways to destroy some country in South America. South America?! I get my cigars from there! We need to fight these wars to save my cigar.

i wish this could be my sig. its so retarded its hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Are you serious? You are so fucking naive kid. Where do you think they will send those troops after? What the fuck are these so called special operations you idiot? Does invading another country count as special operations to you? Lay off the crack bro seriously.

Interesting. Your lack of any central argument other than positing ridiculous questions which you could easily find the answer to yourself, and shouting inane personal insults is very intriguing. I see that 50% of the sentences in your post contained ad hominem attacks, while 0% of them have presented any counter arguments to anything that I said. Could this be because you haven't actually "said" anything at all? I also find the complete lack of anything resembling a "fact" in any of your posts as of yet to be truly fascinating and quite crucial to your strategy of proving that you are probably one of the most unintelligent people to have posted in this thread. Cary on with your demonstrable encyclopedic knowledge of US foreign policy with an emphasis on military operations in Afghanistan, though. It's quite impressive.

they scaled down by 30,000 troops. It's a complete joke. They are scaling down the amount of people the same week they upped the amount of weapons going into the country. This joke of a war was correctly summarized as fighting an idea. How dumb is this?! Fight an idea by sending in our lowest educated and least culturally sensitive who is authorized to use deadly force at their personal discretion.
Yes, the conditions prior to our occupation of afghanistan were terrible. But, to think that the best approach is war is idiotic at best. The Taliban gained power by being the only ones who were offering food and education then they shaped the country to their will and oppressed the people using religion and brute force. Why not just send defensive only troops in and pump all of that money into their schools and basic infrastructure. They wouldn't even need to directly fight the idea. The troops needed would be much less, therefore they could be a much higher caliber than what are currently there. And, their only job would be to make sure the aid gets to the right place.
Edit- piss poor grammar on my part, sorry about that!

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Are you serious? You are so fucking naive kid. Where do you think they will send those troops after? What the fuck are these so called special operations you idiot? Does invading another country count as special operations to you? Lay off the crack bro seriously.

You're either trolling or you're just out of your depth. It's called discretionary warfare, you nimrod, and it's been going on for quite a while.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer How much longer do they get to stay there exactly?10 years?20 years?50 years? Forever? What is their purpose in Afghanistan in 2011?

I don�t have an answer to that. I guess as long as the afghani government wants them there. All I was stating though is I think an invasion was an acceptable response to the 2001 attacks.

quote:

Originally posted by gmilf Yes, the conditions prior to our occupation of afghanistan were terrible. But, to think that the best approach is war is idiotic at best. The Taliban gained power by being the only ones who were offering food and education then they shaped the country to their will and oppressed the people using religion and brute force. Why not just send defensive only troops in and pump all of that money into their schools and basic infrastructure. They wouldn't even need to directly fight the idea. The troops needed would be much less, therefore they could be a much higher caliber than what are currently there. And, their only job would be to make sure the aid gets to the right place.

Defensive only troops? So you're suggesting they should have stationed troops around the country and just waited to be attacked? Don't you think if the US was funding schools and/or infrastructure, that the Taliban would have attacked that? What you're describing sounds an awful lot like what's happening right now. Much less troops, check. Higher caliber troops, check. The US military isn't occupying Afghanistan to provide aid to its people. Their aid to the people was the removal of the Taliban regime. You're making some decent points, but I think you're misunderstanding the role that the US military is playing in Afghanistan as they are now.

I think invading Afghanistan was good idea and justified. Invading Iraq was fucking stupid as hell, though.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don�t have an answer to that. I guess as long as the afghani government wants them there. All I was stating though is I think an invasion was an acceptable response to the 2001 attacks.

I will not argue that the response was unwarranted. However, I am curious if you think that the reason the US attacked in 2001 is as relevant as it is today, since a lot of the same people are still around and kicking that were a part of the organization back then? Or, is the reason we went over finished and we are working on another objective now?

I'm pretty fucking pissed at the Isle of Man.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Defensive only troops? So you're suggesting they should have stationed troops around the country and just waited to be attacked? Don't you think if the US was funding schools and/or infrastructure, that the Taliban would have attacked that? What you're describing sounds an awful lot like what's happening right now. Much less troops, check. Higher caliber troops, check. The US military isn't occupying Afghanistan to provide aid to its people. Their aid to the people was the removal of the Taliban regime. You're making some decent points, but I think you're misunderstanding the role that the US military is playing in Afghanistan as they are now.

I'm disagreeing with what role they should play. They simply should not be the ones in charge of anything. They are muscle, they need education and oppurtunity to be the driving force of the restructure. By doing this the people who are currently siding with the taliban will decrease dramatically and the taliban cannot easily exist within a world that respects education. They will be like the westboro baptist church or the KKK in America within a decade. I am just arguing that education is a lot more powerful than any force could be. Afghanistan used to be the shit and it could easily be so again. But, with a literacy rate of under 20% there is no way in hell that the culture can ever reemerge. And, that is the quickest path to removing the threat.

Education is not more powerful than AK-47s and bombs. I think you're idealizing the role that education would play in the reforming of the Afghani government. Without weapons or a centralized military, it doesn't matter how smart or how literate the average Afghani citizen is.

quote:

Originally posted by gmilf However, I am curious if you think that the reason the US attacked in 2001 is as relevant as it is today, since a lot of the same people are still around and kicking that were a part of the organization back then? Or, is the reason we went over finished and we are working on another objective now?

I think killing Islamic extremists is a good thing no matter where they are. Whether occupying an entire country is a reasonable and cost-effective method of doing so however, I have my doubts. However, what is pretty clear is the US has an obligation to the country they�ve invaded not to disappear into the night while civil war engulfs the country and the govt is toppled. Now, of course this might actually be an impossible task, obviously im not on the ground and in a position to judge whether it is or not. if it is, then I don�t really see the point in staying in the country, though the thought of the Taliban wresting control again is certainly something to be concerned about, if not for ourselves, for the afghani women at least.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.