You think that US soldiers should be happy to risk their lives and happiness by permanently moving to Afghanistan so that you'll feel safe being an optometrist in Louisiana.
I was hoping the current situation with Russia would have helped isolationists on the right and left learn that isolationism is not in the best interests of peace and prosperity in the United States. We should have taken over Afghanistan, taken the rare earth minerals, taken over Iraq and taken their oil to pay for what it cost us to do so. Why? Because it turns out that when the US stays out of these conflicts, the problem only gets bigger until it eventually arrives on our shores. Our absence on the global stage lowers the standard of living in the entire world including here in the US.
But we're weak. And it's not just me and a few fringe groups on the right that aren't feeling so patriotic. Only 30% of people under 40 view the United States positively enough to fight for it if we were attacked by Russia. Compare that to 70% of people of 60 who would be willing to fight for their country. Why is that? It goes back to the original post on the indoctrination of kindergartners and up that America is a systemically racist country and its institutions need to be torn down and rebuilt.
But yes, I'll admit to you that I'm patriotic to my party and to my state and my culture. I have no loyalty to Democrats nor do they have any for me.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
We should have taken over Afghanistan, taken the rare earth minerals, taken over Iraq and taken their oil to pay for what it cost us to do so.
I think you would have found, like others before you, that the Afghans are very good at making people wish they had stayed home in front of the TV with a bag of popcorn.
Same things goes for Iraq, except you'd have a lot of grief coming from Iran as well.
Still, it wouldn't be you in the foxhole, would it?
. Only 30% of people under 40 view the United States positively enough to fight for it if we were attacked by Russia. Compare that to 70% of people of 60 who would be willing to fight for their country. Why is that? It
Probably because for those over 60 the prospect of being involved in actual fighting is purely theoretical? The young know that it would be their asses on the line. They don't have the luxury of consequence-free bellicosity.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I was hoping the current situation with Russia would have helped isolationists on the right and left learn that isolationism is not in the best interests of peace and prosperity in the United States. We should have taken over Afghanistan, taken the rare earth minerals, taken over Iraq and taken their oil to pay for what it cost us to do so. Why? Because it turns out that when the US stays out of these conflicts, the problem only gets bigger until it eventually arrives on our shores.
The United States right now is not being isolationist; it's a key player in orchestrating the Western response to Russian aggression, especially on the economic front. I would think the lesson of Ukraine's resistance to Russia would be "wars of conquest are more trouble than they're worth in the 21st century". The war certainly won't arrive on our shores. If Russia does manage to subdue Ukraine, its remaining forces won't be fit to attack the Polish military, let alone the combined forces of NATO.
Only 30% of people under 40 view the United States positively enough to fight for it if we were attacked by Russia.
Good thing we'll never need to. Russia does not have the power to harm the United States itself through military force, unless it uses nukes. And if there's a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US, unenthusiastic young people will be the least of your worries.
I have no loyalty to Democrats nor do they have any for me.
At last, an accurate statement. Of course, a neoconfederate shouldn't expect any loyalty from Americans.
Last edited by Manetho on Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Still, it wouldn't be you in the foxhole, would it?
If we had a conservative state free of liberals in the government, I'd most certainly be in that foxhole fighting for my country just like the Confederates of old. I'm not going to go into a situation where you're not allowed to fight to win. I'm not going to be a mercenary because it's simply not worth it to me. But if it were for a nation that I actually owned in part, my land, my family, my job, my paycheck, and my civil rights, I'd be fighting for sure. Perhaps that's why Germanic and Scottish tribes were usually pretty small and most empires were fragmented. It's in my blood.
But I'm not going to fight for a country that inculcates my children in this antwhite, antiAmerican, homosexual garbage that I posted originally. I want that taxpayer funded education system in which parents have no say in what is taught done away with.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Still, it wouldn't be you in the foxhole, would it?
If we had a conservative state free of liberals in the government, I'd most certainly be in that foxhole fighting for my country just like the Confederates of old. ...
From the life history you have posted, I doubt whether you are of an age where you would be accepted for training in a combat role against a professional army. You can of course imagine whatever you like; you'll never have to cash it out.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
From the life history you have posted, I doubt whether you are of an age where you would be accepted for training in a combat role against a professional army. You can of course imagine whatever you like; you'll never have to cash it out.
An old man can pull a trigger, take a bullet, blow up a bridge, or fly a plane kamakazi style into an enemy position.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
From the life history you have posted, I doubt whether you are of an age where you would be accepted for training in a combat role against a professional army. You can of course imagine whatever you like; you'll never have to cash it out.
An old man can pull a trigger, take a bullet, blow up a bridge, or fly a plane kamakazi style into an enemy position.
Yup. I think that there is a real problem here about the disconnect between people like Ajax and military reality.
I mean, one of the first duties of a soldier is NOT to get killed. And wars are not won because something big goes bang (in an explosion that for some strange reason does not generate a significant shock wave).
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Ajax wrote: We should have taken over Afghanistan, taken the rare earth minerals, taken over Iraq and taken their oil to pay for what it cost us to do so
According to the best respected military authorities, it takes 1 soldier per 40 population to successfully occupy a country -- bare minimum. That's without a substantial resistance. Iraq back then had a population of ~24 million, so to do what you suggest would require a minimum of 600,000 troops. Is that what you're suggesting?
And as Donald Trump suggested, we should do to Mexico what Putin is doing to Ukraine. Mexico has a population of 128,000,000, so ~3 million+ troops just for the occupation. Is that what you guys in Texas are interested in doing?
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
You think that US soldiers should be happy to risk their lives and happiness by permanently moving to Afghanistan so that you'll feel safe being an optometrist in Louisiana.
I was hoping the current situation with Russia would have helped isolationists on the right and left learn that isolationism is not in the best interests of peace and prosperity in the United States. We should have taken over Afghanistan, taken the rare earth minerals, taken over Iraq and taken their oil to pay for what it cost us to do so. Why?
Why, indeed. I thought that you hated government debt. Nothing that you describe above ‘pays for itself’. Rather, these two plans of yours are quite possibly the most life- and cost-inefficient import strategies ever proposed in this forum.
How many people need to sacrifice their kids so that you can use your cellphone to post your complaints about gas prices while filling up your SUV?
