All Wars have economics as the reason for War

Native Americans probably came to North America from Asia. Is "native" actually the proper description/name?

 

I always think why should USA and its allies share technology, education, money and military machines with other countries when USA and its allies can rule/dominate this world?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course you do because you believe in the "COMMON GOOD".

I on the other hand believe in Nation States and that those Nations have a responsibility to their citizens to protect them from Aggression from other Countries. Sharing technology with our allies, sharing money and military with other countries and our allies would be foolish.

Now, cooperating with our Allies and helping them defeat an aggressor with our own "Technology" et all is wiser.

To share with allies key components of our survival is idiotic.

Of course there are components that we do share in the name of self preservation. Yet, as a blank rule to share all or our components in the name of the "COMMON GOOD" of the allies is idiotic.

I would not share my client list with a "Allie" in my Private Equity, accounting world, trading world et all. My client who owns a Semi conductor plant does not just share his "Pattens", profits or ideas with all of his fellow people in the "TECHNOLOGY WORLD" or with those in the FOOD WORLD.

Common Allies have self interest and common allies are in friendly competition with each other. They share some common traits and ideas but they are not a "COLLECTIVE" as in your idea.

 

World War 2 was a direct result of serious world economic problems and this war killed 72 million to 80 million people worldwide. No other war has killed so many people. So world war 2 is the most important war in human history (till today).

 

Every second $5000 or $158 Billion per year (Porn industry)

1) 25% of all search engine requests are porn related (think of Google $190 billion)

2) 12% of the websites on the internet are pornographic, that's 24,644,172 sites

3) Every second, $3,075.64 is spent on pornography. Every second 28,258 internet users are veiwing porn.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/porn-search-capital-of-th_n_599856.html

 

If there were a lot less religion and a lot more porn there would be a lot less war.

 

So there's going to be a hell of a lot of murderers and rapists in the near future. In fact, that's pretty much all society is going to consist of. The majority of internet traffic is pornography, and probably over three quarters of the male population with access to it, use it, According to statistics, 40% of visitors to porn sites are women.

 

How is being in Afghanistan economically beneficial to the United States?

They don't have oil, its very remote. and most of the terrorists actually are no longer in the country, but have fled to Pakistan.

Actually, I think sometimes countries get into a war like a trader gets into a bad trade. They don't want to take the loss, so they stay in the war no matter how much it costs in treasure and lives similar to the Vietnam war.

When we finally exited Vietnam, they did not come over here to bomb us, since like Afghanistan, they don't have the technology or resources to waste.

I think the Chinese are smarter in this regard. They did not veto for us to attack Libya. If the United States wants to waste money fighting there, its good for them. They will instead make cheaper products to sell at Wall Mart.

 

Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million.

The cost of a gallon of fuel/gas delivered to USA units in Afghanistan has risen to $800. Eighty percent of the supplies of the US-led forces in Afghanistan come up this long, difficult route. Along the way, the USA pays large bribes to Pakistani officials, local warlords, and to Taliban.

USA debts have reached $60 Trillion to $200 Trillion. USA is bankrupt.

Killing 20 Taliban costs $1 Billion / Killing all the Taliban would cost $1.7 Trillion.

The Pentagon will not tell the public what it costs to locate, target and kill a single Taliban soldier because the price-tag is so scandalously high that it makes the Taliban appear to be Super-Soldiers. As set out in this article, the estimated cost to kill each Taliban is as high as $100 million, with a conservative estimate being $50 million. A public discussion should be taking place in the United States regarding whether the Taliban have become too expensive an enemy to defeat.

Each month the Pentagon generates a ream of dubious statistics designed to create the illusion of progress in Afghanistan. In response this author decided to compile his own statistics. As the goal of any war is to kill the enemy, the idea was to calculate what it actually costs to kill just one of the enemy. The obstacles encountered in generating such a statistic are formidable. The problem is that the Pentagon continues to illegally classify all negative war news and embarrassing information. Regardless, some information has been collected from independent sources. Here is what we know in summary and round numbers:

1. Taliban Field Strength: 35,000 troops

2. Taliban Killed Per Year by Coalition forces: 2,000 (best available information)

3. Pentagon Direct Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

4. Pentagon Indirect Costs for Afghan War for 2010: $100 billion

Using the fact that 2,000 Taliban are being killed each year and that the Pentagon spends $200 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan, one simply has to divide one number into the other. That calculation reveals that $100 million is being spent to kill each Taliban soldier. In order to be conservative, the author decided to double the number of Taliban being killed each year by U.S. and NATO forces (although the likelihood of such being true is unlikely). This reduces the cost to kill each Taliban to $50 million, which is the title of this article. The final number is outrageously high regardless of how one calculates it.

To put this information another way, using the conservative estimate of $50 million to kill each Taliban:

It costs the American taxpayers $1 billion to kill 20 Taliban

As the U.S. military estimates there to be 35,000 hard-core Taliban and assuming that no reinforcements and replacements will arrive from Pakistan and Iran:

Just killing the existing Taliban would cost $1.75 Trillion

The reason for these exorbitant costs is that United States has the world’s most mechanized, computerized, weaponized and synchronized military, not to mention the most pampered (at least at Forward Operating Bases). An estimated 150,000 civilian contractors support, protect, feed and cater to the American personnel in Afghanistan, which is an astonishing number. The Americans enjoy such perks and distinctions in part because no other country is willing to pay (waste) so much money on their military.

The ponderous American war machine is a logistics nightmare and a maintenance train wreck. It is also part-myth. This author served at a senior level within the U.S. Air Force. Air Force “smart” bombs are no way near as consistently accurate as the Pentagon boasts; Army mortars remain inaccurate; even standard American field rifles are frequently outmatched by Taliban weapons, which have a longer range. The American public would pale if it actually learned the full story about the poor quality of the weapons and equipment that are being purchased with its tax dollars. The Taliban’s best ally within the United States may be the Pentagon, whose contempt for fiscal responsibility and accountability may force a premature U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Americans cannot continue to fund these Pentagon excesses.

If President Obama refuses to drastically reform the Pentagon’s inefficient way of making war, he may conclude that the Taliban is simply too expensive an enemy to fight. He would then have little choice but to abandon the Afghan people to the Taliban’s “Super-Soldiers.” That would be an intolerable disgrace.
The problem is not simply within the Pentagon.

The hapless U.S. State Department is equally to blame. It:

1. Continues to sit on the sidelines of this war;

2. Refused for nine years to deploy an adequate number of civilian experts;

3. Continues to hire abusive and disreputable security contractors;

4. Failed to fight for the needs of Afghan civilians; and

5. Has made little effort to win their hearts and minds.

A crucial statistic that demonstrates this is to compare military and security expenditures by the United States in Afghanistan with expenditures for civilian aid, such as reconstruction. That statistic is as follows:

Money spent on Military/Security: $365 billion Money spent on Afghan civilians: $8.5 billion

This latter number spells out “FAILURE.” U.S. diplomats and USAID officials have failed to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans and as a result they have accomplished the impossible. Their lack of resolve and interest has made an increasing number of disillusioned Afghans view Taliban rule as potentially an improvement.

bring all our boys home waste of time money and lives.

[link to kabulpress.org]

USA is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan. USA should learn from Russia and withdraw all their soldiers from Afghanistan and bring them back home. If Russia could not win in Afghanistan so will USA not win in Afghanistan.

 

Libya war is direct result of economic problems.

Public decapitation of Libyan soldier as crowd cheers

Video: http://www.youtube.com/embed/vrAqcd5WgHY

The European Union and United States have barred access to more than $60 billion in Libyan bank accounts and funds but other nations have done little or nothing to prevent Col Gaddafi and his associates sustaining themselves.

Col Gaddafi has moved billions of dollars back to Tripoli since the rebellion began in mid-February, according to European, American and United Nations officials who spoke to the Los Angeles Times.

China, India and Russia, three of the world's biggest economies, have resisted European and American attempts to expand the sanctions. They argue that such actions could damage their own industries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-leaders-call-for-Nato-to-target-Gaddafi.html

 

Americans are basically European people. Also many Russians and Germans have contributed for the development of USA. Early Europeans had the ship technology and they sailed/travelled to American land. My history is weak.