The Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia — can it handle both?

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

None of it will ever happen, it's an old storyline, nobody cares.

America isn't planning for war against anyone.

None of these things will happen

a reply to: ClovenSky


wrong. if you dont pay taxes and work you get jail. you are not responsible and to say so is aeeogance

a reply to: purplemer


its not 2 million dead. stop making stuff up. its not even 750,000 either in iraq.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: face23785

War is good for business .....

Peace is good for business ......

Ferengi Law of Acquisition

Yes, it's easy to get them confused. By the way, it's the Rules of Acquisition. And truth be told, they're just suggestions, but who would buy a book called The Suggestions of Acquisition? Brilliant marketing.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: purplemer


its not 2 million dead. stop making stuff up. its not even 750,000 either in iraq.

Its you that is making stuff up! What is your opinion based on CNN news. Science is you friend and the truth hurts. If you are interested go and read the Lancet report. only per review study done on the death toll of the occupation. Read the number of death. Mostly women and children I might add. Add to the number the continuing death and you will come close to that number.

When you are acquainted you will be in a better postilion to post. Until then stop making stuff up.!

a reply to: purplemer

You mean the "we count everyone who has died in Iraq since 2003 whether their death was related to the war or not" study?

The "Iraq Family Health Survey" published in the New England Journal of Medicine surveyed 9,345 households across Iraq and estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) over the same period covered in the second Lancet survey by Burnham et al.[89] The NEJM article stated that the second Lancet survey "considerably overestimated the number of violent deaths and said the Lancet results were, "highly improbable, given the internal and external consistency of the data and the much larger sample size and quality-control measures taken in the implementation of the IFHS."

And yes, the NEJM is peer-reviewed.

War is bad enough, you don't need to make # up to make it sound worse than it is.

a reply to: face23785

Sorry to inform you but what you post holds no muster. If you read your own quote and understood it you would release you are comparing apples and oranges. They are both measuring different things see! The Lancet report worked out the total death toll due to the occupation. THe NEJM measure violenet death. They are very different things.


Trot on!

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Nobody really thinks we're gonna attack Russia or China directly. As someone who recently retired from the military, I can tell you first hand we need more money. The anemic funding we had recently crippled us. All the defense and intelligence officials have been telling Congress we're in trouble.

They were telling them the same thing before 9/11. Nobody wanted to listen.

You don't need more money. You already have the biggest militarily budget in the world many times over!

What you NEED is to remove your American Jack Boots from Syria and other places and stop invading country's.

You will save enough money then to fund DEFENSE.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ClovenSky

I would personally love to. But it won't change many of the events going on in the world. As long as there is competition for resources, there will be wars, and land grabs. I don't agree with being the world police, but it's naive to think that if we bring all our troops home then the world will suddenly be at peace.

I'd love to see a different approach, and would love to find a way that would work. What that would be is beyond me though.

Bringing troops home and stopping wars of aggression wont cause world peace. Wars will go on and people will fight but at least the USA wont be involved.
And playing toy soldiers in the middle east and proxy wars in Syria is not helping ANYONE. PAcking up and going home wont exactly make the world more dangerous.

a reply to: Arandomstranger

PAcking up and going home wont exactly make the world more dangerous.

Tell that to the Iraqis who were butchered by the thousands after we left. :/

Though I mostly agree that I have no interest in getting dragged into them in the first place. Leaving the region in chaos after we went and tipped over the game board with Iraqi Freedom and the Arab Spring is potentially more dangerous. Nature abhors a vacuum.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Arandomstranger

PAcking up and going home wont exactly make the world more dangerous.

Tell that to the Iraqis who were butchered by the thousands after we left. :/

Though I mostly agree that I have no interest in getting dragged into them in the first place. Leaving the region in chaos after we went and tipped over the game board with Iraqi Freedom and the Arab Spring is potentially more dangerous. Nature abhors a vacuum.

USA should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

The invasion and aftermath killed more than Saddam ever did.


As for Syria? Its Russias problem, let them deal with it.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

As usual I think the USA would only win If backed by the British

.

Yup.

The USA cant win a war without the British

originally posted by: Arandomstranger

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Arandomstranger

PAcking up and going home wont exactly make the world more dangerous.

Tell that to the Iraqis who were butchered by the thousands after we left. :/

Though I mostly agree that I have no interest in getting dragged into them in the first place. Leaving the region in chaos after we went and tipped over the game board with Iraqi Freedom and the Arab Spring is potentially more dangerous. Nature abhors a vacuum.

USA should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

The invasion and aftermath killed more than Saddam ever did.


As for Syria? Its Russias problem, let them deal with it.

I mostly agree with this. But in practice it is rarely so cut and dry. What happens if the US withdraws from Syria tomorrow? (I agree we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. We have some gall complaining about foreigners buying Facebook ads "undermining our government" after effecting yet another coup in Syria and elsewhere)

originally posted by: Arandomstranger

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: BotheLumberJack

As usual I think the USA would only win If backed by the British

.

Yup.

The USA cant win a war without the British

Not true, we borrowed the French and Hessians when we decolonized with no help from you guys at all

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: face23785

Sorry to inform you but what you post holds no muster. If you read your own quote and understood it you would release you are comparing apples and oranges. They are both measuring different things see! The Lancet report worked out the total death toll due to the occupation. THe NEJM measure violenet death. They are very different things.


Trot on!

I know they're measuring different things. That's the entire point. The study you're pointing to counts deaths that aren't even peripherally related to the war. And the study I pointed to points out flaws in your study where even in the apples to apples section, violent deaths, they grossly overestimated them due to flawed methodology.

Running and grabbing the highest estimate you can find because it fits your agenda is pretty poor research on your part. Especially considering you went out of your way to point out it was peer reviewed, when the peer review process shredded it for being inaccurate. But I know you're not interested in actual data and science, just your agenda.

a reply to: face23785

If they are measuring different things why are you wasting my time. I stated the death toll of the occupation. That figure stands correct and you agree.

So please trot on.

a reply to: purplemer

It doesn't stand correct. It's been disputed by other peer-reviewed studies that pointed out flaws in its methodology. You're wrong. Stop exclusively looking for propaganda and open your mind to real information and data.

a reply to: face23785

No its not disputed. You either are not understanding what you shared or are trying to spread disinformation.
Makes no difference to me. I am use to it.


One paper deals with violent death the other the total death rate from the occupation. As I said apples and pears. Both papers are perfectly compatible with each other and the death toll remains as stated.