As much as I like taunting and messing with righties, there is a purpose behind this. I really want to understand why they think the way they do.
Since the end of WWII, the nuclear deterrent kept the superpowers at bay. But for some reason, it was never used as a deterrent against lesser foes.
Why didn't Truman or Ike just go ahead and nuke the North Koreans? As long as we were there, nuke the Chinese also. Back then it was just us and the Soviets. They are masters of the proxy war. They would have fought to the last Chinese and North Korean but not any Russians.
Why didn't JFK just nuke the Castro? We sent a half a million Troops to Vietnam. Lost 50,000 lives. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, injured and either physically, mentally or both, scarred for life. Why didn't we nuke them?
When the terrorists suicide bombed our Marines in Lebanon, why didn't President Reagan really teach those bastards a lesson and nuke the shit out of them the way he taught the Iranians a lesson after they released our hostages. That was the word then. The Iranians were afraid of Reagan and didn't want to incur his wrath. But Reagan didn't nuke them either.
We knew Saddam was an asshole while supporting him during the Iran/Iraq war. After he invaded Kuwait President BushI built a coalition and kicked the Iraqis asses back where they belonged. Lot of work. Lot of diplomacy. Why didn't he just nuke the bastard then?
The Taliban were and still are a bunch of no good pricks that deserve a good nuking as much as any no good prick. But invasion and occupation was chosen over a good nuking.
If Saddam was as bad as we were told before the Iraq invasion and occupation, why didn't President BushII just nuke him?
President Obama is considering strategy in Afghanistan. General McChrystal wants more Troops. The Right wants more Troops. The left wants to leave. The Right and the pro Military wants us to let the military win wars and not have more Vietnams. They call for President Obama to listen to the General and send more Troops. They of course, in true republican fashion, don't want to pay for it though.
It leads to the question, why doesn't the right call for nuking them instead of more expensive occupations and nation building programs that drain our treasury and worse, cost the lives of so many of our finest People.
If we nuke em, Halliburton, Blackwater, and other defense contractors don't make any money.
General Douglas MacArthur said "In war, there is no substitute for victory." A multi generation occupation is not a victory. It's just an expensive way to put off making a decision.
17 comments:
It's a question I have asked myself for years, "why didn't we Nuke them" or should I say "why didn't they Nuke them" there were plenty of people willing to do it, most of them ordinary Joes sitting drinking a beer, talking about things, they were the guys that were going to be sent to foreign lands to do most of the dying.
I think you nailed it, if we Nuke them, the money machine quits spitting out dough. The Military Industrial Complex splutters to a grinding halt, the world would go into lock-down for many years, trust, such as it is, goes flying out the window. No travel, no tourists. The shooting wars with bullets only, is what makes the world go round.
Are you claiming that CONSUMERISM as a disease has infected our military industrial complex?
Actually, nukes are like collectors editions; you want to have them but you store them nicely away where only you can enjoy them and from time to time you go and dust off your collection.
War is too lucrative of a business for the politicians to give up. With all the defense contracts to hand out to supporters and money that can be spent for our national "defense," the military industrial complex is way too big to fail. Plus, it's the one big government spending program no Republican or Democrat with high aspirations will ever try to curtail.
"If we nuke em, Halliburton, Blackwater, and other defense contractors don't make any money."
That's it in a nutshell. The war industry, the insurance industry, and the financial industry run this country and will until we have campaign finance reform. As long as they pay the politicians instead of us, they will run the country instead of us.
The other problem is that if we nuke them, someone might nuke us, and nuclear winter will happen. If we had nuked them, the Soviets might've nuked us. That was the fear. That is still the fear.
Plus the civilian collateral damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were so horrendous that we never wanted to do it again.
Uh, Obama's the one that's having a problem deciding here. If the general has laid out a plan to win (not just spend another decade there), then we need to commit the troops AND the funds necessary to bring the war to a close. Otherwise, it's time to pull them out.
A drawn-out war will only weaken us in the long run.
Having said that, I'd level some mountains with a nuke or two. It might start some shit, but it would eliminate a really bad spot really fast.
To carry on a point from James: It's been too long since a nuke has been used against people. Perhaps the real solution to our current mess is to show we will use them.
I don't want the President being hurried into any decision Patrick. I wish Bush had dithered. The mess in Iraq and Afghanistan were in part caused by not dithering. Now, all of a sudden, after eight years, General McChrystal has a plan to win? Bullshit. Either raise the taxes, institute the draft and send a million Troops there. Nuke em. Or leave. I vote we leave. My next choice is nuke em. Anything other than these three choices is blind McCainism. Makes a few people feel good that we're doing something even though it really isn't enough to make a damn bit of difference.
TAO: Every now and then you have to take the old hot rod out of the garage and see what it will do.
101: The only problem is that Obama has had months to figure out a strategy in Afghanistan, and he even had a good idea of the direction he was intending to go in the campaign!
This was the problem Bush had in Iraq. He gave it more time and more time, and the body count rose. It wasn't until he changed strategy (in that case the surge) that things began to turn around. Now we have a good chance of getting completely out of that country.
We know that the current Afghanistan strategy isn't working. And absent some clear evidence that he should do something else, Obama should probably trust his commander in the field to win, or just get out.
It's not that hard a decision, unless you're playing politics with lives.
Politics is the game politicians play. My hope is Obama will stay politically loyal to those of my thought and get out. I see nothing to gain by staying in Iraq or Afghanistan. The alternative is tax,draft and a million Troops for generations. Or nuke them. Either total victory or leave.
Didn't you get Right is Right's memo Patrick? She's going to ream you out good for visiting here man. It would suck if you obeyed her though seeing as how you're one of only four or five righties that actually display intelligent thought and a worthy presentation of your views.
I have to admit you have me thinking about your "Fair Tax."
Having said that, I'd level some mountains with a nuke or two. It might start some shit, but it would eliminate a really bad spot really fast.
To carry on a point from James: It's been too long since a nuke has been used against people. Perhaps the real solution to our current mess is to show we will use them.
Holy Shyte!
Who the Christ would you use them against? Afghans? Pakistanis? Iranians? Would it warm your heart to see women and children die of radiation? Hey! Who the hell cares if some furriners--especially collateral furriners die horrible deaths.
Just so long as the rest of the effing world gets the message!
The US has big nuclear balls, and we don't give a shyte who we kill, just so long a we intimidate the rest of the effing world.
Jesus H. Christ, Patrick. You're a freaking father.
How can you talk like that!
Wait! You're joking. Right?
Sorry. I actually thought for a moment you were serious.
But no one can be that insane.
We were having a fun "Dr. Strangelove" moment here is all Shaw. Relax. With the technology we have the bombs can be dropped on a dime. No more innocent women and children than were killed in either of these invasions and occupations will be killed by a few small A-Bombs.
What's a few more dead women and children if we get to win this time. And think of the You Tube videos.
I am of course being silly.
Truth,
I get this question all the time in class. I struggle with an answer because I would love to just nuke the hell out of all our enemies and problems. You can dream right?
Historically, it would have solved a lot of problems. Being a Vietnam guy, I would have liked to have seen nukes help us win the war. It was a fiasco that spiraled out of control and we lost a lot of guys there. What a total mess.
I fear Afghanistan is heading that way if we don't make a decision, one way or the other. I think we need to win it, again. I question, though, whether or not the Afghanis really want us to win. They may be happy with the status quo.
If that's the case, we're sending our soldiers to die for no reason. Deja vu all over again. I remember standing in front of the wall thinking that we wasted so many lives for so little, that went so wrong. I made it out, but so many didn't.
Good day, sir.
"I am of course being silly."
Unfortunately, there are people in this country that believe we should nuke people who disagree with us. They don't care about others. They really believe "What's a few more dead women and children if we get to win this time."
Stupid f*ckers!
Hey Patrick M:
SUCK. ON. THIS.
It's been too long since a nuke has been used against people.
Nyah... Your over-the-top hyperbole is too over-the-top.
The reason the REMFpublican Party has tied itself to war is war benefits their party in some many ways. It can be used to weld People together, It's a great dilution of revolutionary spirt diverting it away from unseating the REMFpublican Party and it makes them Rich, Rich, Rich.
And in the Republican Cost/Benefit Analysis all it costs are a few malcontents lives. Easy choice.
Patrick, my point is that nukes carry too much civilian collateral damage to use. Nukes are, and should be, a last resort. As in, these guys are about to launch them at us and wipe us off the map unless we do it first.
THAT is self-defense.
The only other time I think I could've advocated nukes would've been a few months ago, when North Korea's ENTIRE naval force was training in the same area, AND they were launching their missiles toward Hawaii. Blow up their entire military, and a few strikes against ALL of their military bases. Minimal collateral damage.
But nukes in a country we are trying to "liberate"? Never. We'll just end up killing those we are trying to help and end up with future generations as enemies.
Oh wait. That IS exactly what happened with our current wars. Huh.
Money is so intangible, its almost like a promise and a piece of paper.
Post a Comment