We have now been at war for almost twice as long as we were in WWI & WWII combined

[mtnsnake]

In WWI we fought for somewhere between 1 year and 1 1/2 years, depending on who you're talking to.

In WWII we fought for about 3 1/2 years.

In WWI and WWII combined, we fought for a total of approximately 5 years.

In Afghanistan and & Iraq, we have been at war for 9 years, 3 months. So, in less than one year, we will have been at war for twice as long as we were in WWI and WWII combined. At least in WWI and WWII, we had a good reason to fight to the finish.

Considering there is no practical finish to this war and considering the obscene amount of time we have spent accomplishing nothing but making the world a more dangerous place than ever, isn't it time to get the hell out of there and mind our own business?

The financial cost is staggering, and we can't afford the physical and mental consequences upon our soldiers, their families, and the after affects of war upon them for a day longer, let alone for an eternity. Sadly, the war and its cost have become a way of life for the younger generation.

After all these years, how ridiculous is it that we are still over there?

[slackmaster]

1. Interesting factoid

K&R

:kick:

[ProSense]

2. Vietnam was even longer than that. Oh, and don't forget

that as of August 2010, the administration withdrew 100,000 troops from Iraq and reducted the number of bases from 357 to 94 on track to end the occupation by the end of 2011.

Summer 2011 will mark the beginning of withdrawal for Afghanistan.

[mtnsnake]

3. No need to justify the obscene length of this war with a Vietnam comparison

as of August 2010, the administration withdrew 100,000 troops from Iraq and reducted the number of bases from 357 to 94 on track to end the occupation by the end of 2011.

Summer 2011 will mark the beginning of withdrawal for Afghanistan.

An end to this war has not yet happened, so when it ends, I'll read it about it in the newspaper, not in your crystal ball, thank you.

(late edit for better choice of wording.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Is length of time, or casualties a better measure of the cost of a war?

[mtnsnake]

5. I suppose it depends how you look at it

Some will say the number of casualties is directly proportional to the importance of the war, while others will say the number of casualties relates more to the cost of the war. I guess it depends on what the priorities are of whomever is asking that question.

[valerief]

6. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

We've always been at war with Oceania.
We've always been at war with Iraq.
We've always been at war with Afghanistan.
We've always been at war with Pakistan.
We've always been at war with Yemen.
We've always been at war with ______________ (fill in the blank).

[golfguru]

7. Absolutely insane Afghan war continues

on borrowed money from China....unbelievable!

How stupid are us Americans?

[ljm2002]

8. Can someone please tell me...

...when, during the last 50 years, have we *not* been "at war" somewhere?

I put "at war" in quotes, because during that same 50-year period, to the best of my knowledge, Congress has not seen fit to declare any of these wars. And yet the wars continue, and those who profit off of them become richer, and the enemies we create become more numerous.

It seems like a fine way to promote our interests around the world, no?

(In answer to my own question: No.)

[golfguru]

15. During Bill CLinton's 8 years there was only Kosovo

and that did not last more than a few seeks.

[ljm2002]

16. Good point...

...I guess the Kosovo thing gave me a mental block. Of course, that was a somewhat popular effort, predicated on our having picked the right side, and not losing any of our own soldiers -- we just bombed the sh*t out of those we deemed to be on the wrong side.

Still, it's a pretty poor record overall, in terms of the percentage of time we have been "at war" with someone or other.

And of course, our politicians always tell us, "Americans are a peaceful people".

Like hell.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. When American deaths are totaled Iraq/Afghanistan hardly seem like wars.

American war deaths:

WWI - 116,708; WWII - 407,316; Korean War - 36,914; Vietnam War - 58,169.

Total-619,107


4,669 American soldiers have died in Iraq and 1,468 have died in Afghanistan since 9/11.

Total - 6,137 over ten years.

Totals from(http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-american-soldiers-have-died-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-since-9%26%2347%3B11) and (http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-americans-died-in-ww1,-ww2,-vietnam-and-korea)

One death in aggression is wrong and one too many.

When the US starts any war our leaders have failed.

[mtnsnake]

11. You left out the population of the enemy that we're supposedly fighting

You also left out how modern warfare is mostly fought from afar and not so much in all-out battles with one front line going against the front line of the enemy, as was the case in past wars from the first half of the 20th century.

Another thing you left out is the affects on our the soldiers and their families. The casualties are alarming, considering the high suicide rate, the severe physical injuries, and the staggering number of soldiers suffering from TBI and other mental problems associated with this war.

And what about the financial cost? Is that not obscene?

[The Wielding Truth]

12. I know. I thought of it, but couldn't get the figures. It's sickening. War has no glory.

[laugle]

14. What's really obscene is

the POTUS doesn't seem to realize the rethugs would like nothing better than to see him stuck in Afghanistan until the election, to effect the outcome......

[jwirr]

10. And we don't even know why we are there!

[PoliticAverse]

13. It's simply more profitable to keep a war going than to end it.

Like "the war on (some) drugs.

[Kaleva]

17. The 100+ year Indian Wars were seen as very profitable.

Not to the Native Americans though. They pretty much lost everything and a number of tribes were wiped out.

[Divine Discontent]

18. REC without comment

[Mimosa]

19. What atrocities will be committed in order to 'win' in Afghanistan? Or will we leave?

War is a self-inflicted curse upon humanity. Sure, war movies are exciting, as are most tales of heroism. All parties involved in conflicts throughout history have claimed to have fought for noble purposes, some which are religious. But in reality groups resort to violence to gain control of resources and/or territory. Others are defending their land or resources.

If people would learn accept the true teachings of Gandhi, Christ and/or Buddha perhaps they'd become inspired to stop the violence. And stop doing to others that which is hateful. Will the never-ending cycles of human violence ever end? Will we as a species become courageous enough to work peacefully together for the collective greater good?

Somebody has to have courage to end it. The U.S. did not arm Afghanistan's mujahadeen in order to battle communism or 'free' anybody. The Soviets wanted control over the almost untapped mineral resources in the vast mountain ranges of that area just as the British had 80 years previously. And the USA wants to gain control of the lithium and the rare earths to maintain our 'way of life in the material sense, with all we need to keep manufacturing our goodies.

But our constant attacks on the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan can't help but create resentment and hatred which will last until 'we' defeat or even destroy the peoples of those lands. America has experience in destroying tribes to obtain exactly what 'we' want. During the 19th century the native tribes of much of the North American continent were defeated with relative ease. This time it won't be as easy to take what 'we' desire.

America military experts claim that we cannot be seen to 'lose' this war after our humiliation in Vietnam. What more atrocities will be committed in order to 'win' the goal? Will we ever know?

[Yavin4]

20. You Are Wrong. We've Always Been At War with Eastasia.

Now, eat your black bread and drink your Victory gin.

[Cherchez la Femme]

21. And War is Peace