Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[9thIDdoc]

[QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

There are key words in your post - Superior Tech

Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.

In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.

Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.

The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target. 9/11. You may have heard of it.

What war did Iraq start?

You are ignoring some very important facts, beginning with Iraq having been a very loyal and useful ally of the U.S. during our conflict with Iran. Next, Hussein's cause for hostility toward Kuwait was the revelation that Kuwait had been diagonally drilling into Iraq's oil field for several years. Outright theft.

But Hussein didn't make a move against Kuwait until he first brought the theft to the attention of U.S. Ambassador, April Glaspie, asking if the U.S. had any opposition to his intention to attack Kuwait. Glaspie conferred with the Secretary of State. She then informed Hussein that the U.S. had no interest in that intention.

In cooperation with Saudi Arabia, George H.W. Bush had double-crossed Hussein with that notification because he waited until Hussein invaded Kuwait and then attacked the Iraqi Army, brutally destroying it. This was done because Hussein's next move after occupying Kuwait was likely to be Saudi Arabia -- which was on intimately friendly terms with the Bush dynasty.

What H.W. Bush did to Iraq was wrong. What W. Bush did was doubly wrong. The loss of so many American lives in both actions is a goddam shame. What the Bush crime family has done in the Middle East is the most egregious war crime in modern history. There is no way to justify any of it.

If H.W. Bush had cooperated with Hussein, instead of double-crossing him to protect the Saudi Royal Family we would be in the cat-bird seat today, paying .35 a gallon for Premium gas and we would not be involved in any active hostilities in the Middle East. Our friend and ally Saddam Hussein would be taking care of all of that.

Wrong I am correctly ignoring unimportant facts and extremely lame excuses for one of the biggest asshos the world has ever seen.

 

[rightwinger]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Iraq and Afghanistan

Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target. 9/11. You may have heard of it.

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

 

[rightwinger]

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers. They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed. President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective

 

[9thIDdoc]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Iraq and Afghanistan

Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target. 9/11. You may have heard of it.

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving leaving the first time.
You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers. They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed. President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective

You consider 9/11 small scale?

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Iraq and Afghanistan

Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target. 9/11. You may have heard of it.

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving leaving the first time.
You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.

We had contained Iraq for ten years.

We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

 

[rightwinger]

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers. They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed. President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective

You consider 9/11 small scale?

Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating

 

[9thIDdoc]

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers. They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed. President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective

You consider 9/11 small scale?

Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating

Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.

 

[DrLove]

Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating

Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.[/QUOTE]

AARP member

Armed
And
Really
Pissed

I too am an AARP Member - armed and quite POd that we've surrendered our governance to a Gaggle of Birthers, Baggers & Blowhards -

YOU amongst

 

[jbander]

Our enemies are by no means limited to one method of attack. We must be prepared to defend against all possible forms of attack or we may well die. Just that simple.

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Take out us stepping into some others countries business, there are few that needed to be fought, everything from Korea on has been stupidity , bogus , lies usuall

No immigrants have made this country what it is. and your hate group wants to get rid of or stop them from coming here, either by the colors of their skin or their religion. Very constitutional.

You're right. Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants. That compatibility has been and remains critical. Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.

If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans! There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula. I have no problem with properly vetted Mexicans, either. They are hard-working, familial, Christian people.

Don't forget the Crusades. There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.

Ya you fucking bigot pile of shit, you are the lowest form of humanity and your in the right spot belonging to the hate party and I'm sure that pile of shit you have for a president is right up your bigoted scum bag asshole.

 

[MikeK]

We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait.

What we "went to" in Iraq was not a war in the accepted sense of the word. What we did was invade a nation which we'd already betrayed and double-crossed by deliberate deception as to our concern over Hussein's actions re: Kuwait's theft of Iraqi oil. With Saudi Arabia's interests secretly in mind, and having told Hussein we were not concerned with his actions against Kuwait, H.W. Bush waited until the Iraqi Army entered and secured Kuwait, he then evicted the Iraqis and in an action which is considered an infamous display of unlawful military action (look it up) he ordered the retreating Iraqi Army, which consisted mainly of poorly trained, virtually defenseless conscripts, slaughtered on what has been named the "Highway of Death."

We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving leaving the first time.

What do you mean by, "We went back into Iraq?" All we did was chase what was left of the Iraqi Army back to Iraq after mercilessly and unnecessarily slaughtering them on "Highway of Death." But we didn't inhabit Iraq then. W. Bush went into (invaded) and occupied Iraq only after fabricating the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lies.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. If you actually served in the Middle East I suggest you are just one more ignorant, misused grunt who swallowed every lump of deceitful bullshit served to you by the likes of W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, et al. You just don't want to know that you were duped into participating in one of the most egregious war-crimes in modern military history -- but you do your best to attach some level of glory to it.

If you'd care to research the facts leading to our present predicament, and the shameful waste of life and resources leading up to it, you will find that we have methodically created the terrorism we're dealing with today.

 

[jbander]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

Someone watches too many movies...

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

 

[Markle]

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

Just living in your fantasy world, aren't you?

 

[jbander]

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Your just another dumb ass hole , I work for Open Doors for youth and Family promise and I have led a emotion anonymous group for 17 year all as a volunteer. I work with the poor three days a week and what I know is that you just another dumb fuck that hasn't a clue what they are talking about , your a loser thatsTrying to use the poor as the reason that your a loser. You can't though your a loser without the help of anyone else.

 

[jbander]

You're right. Immigrants have made this Country grow: White, European and Scandinavian, primarily Christian immigrants. That compatibility has been and remains critical. Start tampering with that chemistry and it could bring America down.

If America needs immigrants -- start bringing in White Europeans! There is no good reason to depart from the proven formula.

Don't forget the Crusades. There was a reason for them and that reason hasn't changed.

Oh fuck - the Bannonites, Klansman, Nazis, white nationalists & ethnic purists have arrived.

Pass

There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.

 

[Markle]

We had contained Iraq for ten years.

We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)



He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

 

[jbander]

[QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

There are key words in your post - Superior Tech

Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.

In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.

Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.

Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot

 

[jbander]

Maybe sorta. I don't believe we need to be very concerned about a ground invasion. Ground wars are nearly obsolete and so the hardware required for such should be scaled way back. As for ground wars we have started, they've largely been enormous failures over the past 60+ years. We need to mind our own damn business, keep an eye on our borders and beef up missile defense systems to the point where we can take out an ICBM 99% of the time.

All I can say is that history has proven otherwise quite conclusively.
What ground wars do you think we've started?

Iraq and Afghanistan

Iraq started the war when it invaded Kuwait and threatened SA.
The Taliban attacked us to make Afghanistan a target. 9/11. You may have heard of it.

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

We went to war in Iraq because because Iraq had attacked and occupied Kuwait. We went back into Iraq because Iraq refused to honor the ceasefire that resulting in our leaving leaving the first time.
You think there is any important difference between Islamic terrorist groups? I don't.

Everyone who wants to look at why the half wit Bush went to war in Iraq look up "Code name curve ball" Everything you need to know about why we went there will be addressed there . and I guaranty that it will show what a lame brain this clown is/

 

[jbander]

Future wars will be fought thru cyber attacks

A room full of geeks half way around the world will hack into your financial system and hold your economy for ransom unless you surrender

Easier and not as deadly as a nuclear attack

But we're not in the future and we must still fight wars on the ground and door to door.

ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, none of which have submarines, missiles, fighters or bombers. They all remain threats today unless you haven't noticed. President Donald Trump has a stunning job of destroying ISIS but the job is not done.

They are threats of small scale attacks

They need to be kept in perspective

You consider 9/11 small scale?

NO but Bush the baby killer murdered 5000 American heroes for a lie , a lie I may add, He and his vice president made a fortune on.