They out tact us
unfortunately, its not a matter of out "tack"ing us, its just an escalation in a warfare strategy that we americans coined. unfortunately we cant fight fire with fire, and while we have an amazing kill/death ratio (I know its somewhere in the 125/4 range in Afghanistan) its difficult to unroot an enemy that hides so much.
If we reduced our army size there, we would be able to plan a lot more easily defensive manuevers as well as offensive strikes.
bad move. you would embolden your enemy and lose effectiveness. people would largely see this as a pullout
and how exactly do you expect to train so many special forces?
the fact that we cant win again is why people are comparing it to Vietnam
tactically we had basically crushed the enemy at the end of the tet offensive, but unfortunately the public had no balls to continue what would have been a simple military offensive.
Vitetnam? Well I could say moral ones, the things we did to the populace of that country were terrible, I am amazed that the people in charge of our country were able to decid the fate of hundreds of thousands of lives so easily
I would question this here. I understand that napalm is pretty nasty, and there were other less favorable incidents. but by and large many southern vietnamese understood the necessity of our measures and were pretty happy to have us there. lots of the vietnam backlooking is ridden with a tinted viewpoint, much of it is dramatized.
Ever heard of the damino effect or the slipery slope?
yes, its called a logical fallacy for a reason.
1) The internet is covered by some legal protection of the FCC and the main part of the Network Nuetrality act states basically that it could not be controlled by any one organization, yet the government is disobeying it by exerting its control over companies that control network frames and asking them for private information.
the government has minimal influence in the workings of the internet, hardly "controlled by one organization". at best they do a little snooping to find people who are running illigitimate money transactions, which, hint hint, helps us spot terrorism.
2)The Patriot Act pretty much states that anyone under suspicion of treasoness actions can be put under war trial without a jury or a legitamate judge and charged with war time crimes.
its been this way for a while, just the fact that nobody documented it.
I would say more like regret and pitty. I went to Europe last summer and most of the people there talked about America was going to be like the Weimar Republic. It was quitte depressing, they have lost almost all faith in us staying the great leader of the world.
ah yes, Europe, the socialist super-continent of such places as the czech republic and the eastern bloc, a shining example of their superior forms of government.
like I said, there isnt much deterrioration going on here. its more a question of envy.
I am sure they envy our power, but its more like they are fed up with our arrogance. Even when we lose we remain stuborn to the point of stupidity and that just make the rest of the world go "What an asshole".
I'm sorry, but last time I remember large swathes of Europe backed us with Iraq and Afghanistan, and I dont really hear many of them complaining now. after their own series of brutal attacks.
the "what an asshole" response is mostly emmanating from the french and the Democrats. the French have their own issues to deal with before they turn a sharp eye on us, and the Democrats... well they love to throw around political dirt, dont they (I am completely softening my words here... give me credit for not being blatantly insulting)
I actually have a friend from france. she strikes me as a hardcore pro-american... its almost scary...
Um wrong?
It did get people back to work, pure and simple, thats what it did. It helped get people back to work.
this is sad. it didnt do anything. at best it provided *SOME* jobs in government, but it certainly did not break any downward spirals.
WWII was what allowed people to "get back to work". mostly because minorities and women were finally able to get jobs. after WWII the only reason another downward spiral didnt spark is because of the advent of imperialistic communism and the advent of the military-industrial complex.
that you dont understand this is remarkably disturbing.
here, just look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_deal#The_recession_of_1937_and_recovery
Morgenthau's advice might have assisted the collapsing idea, but it hardly helped.
in case you didnt notice; the effect of the new deal is largely controversial, there is NO evidence that it helped improve QoL, it may have stabalized the economy, but it didnt do the actual recovery work.
And fact please, give me an employment graph from 1938, also compare it to that of 1939 and 1940, the effects were delayed, but they were there. And it was anything but underfunded, the nations budget in 1939 had over a quarter going to welfare programs.
the idea started in 193
3 thank you.
and the 1938 event was the end of a fancy little collapse. of course there was a small rebound.
and if you knew a thing about the internet, you would know how hard it is to find a specific graph for that time, but I'll do my best.
How so, when this war has kept president Bush from getting to his other wonderous plans. Tell me one good improvement he made that wouldnt have happened under some one else. And social security doesnt count, since he couldnt even make that work
as with all wars, benefitial actions get overriden by the relatively irrelevant occurances of the war.
the fact that no one can come up with something is merely a testement to my point.
