Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

[Kasz216]

akuma587 said:

Kasz216 said:

akuma587 said:

You also make the assumption that spending more on a war is always an effective way to win that war.  That may be true in some cases, but we put a lot of money and manpower into wars like Vietnam and Iraq and have only gotten back questionable results in return.  Sometimes spending money on a war just means you spent a lot of money and didn't get shit in return.

 

How do you think the Iraq and Vietnam wars would of went without spending a lot of money on them?  The same or worse?

Also, the Iraq war went awesome.  It was the gameplan for the reconstruction of Iraq that was screwed up.  They never came up with a gameplan for what to do after they won the war.

As for Vietnam... Vietnam actually went well consdering we were fighting both Vietnam and China... and also keeping military actions to a low enough level as to not ignite a nuclear war.  You can't really win "Limited wars".  Not against China anyway.

Kudos for actually bringing up something democrats have done wrong for once though.

 

Oh yeah, LBJ totally botched it by getting involved in Vietnam.  There were some merits to containment as a foreign policy, but on the whole it was pretty much a complete failure, especially containment through the use of military force.

I'm not trying saying that we would have been better off if we would have spent less money in Vietnam, I am trying to say that we would have been better off if we hadn't spent any money there in the first place.  I feel the same way about Iraq.

You could argue that the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own weight even if Reagan hadn't spent that extra money.  They had systematic problems throughout their entire country even before we started having a pissing contest with them in the 80's.  The vibrancy of our economy and the severe problems with their economy were just as much a factor or more in our "victory" over the Soviet Union.

In a lot of circumstances, economic warfare is more effective than actual warfare.  Plus its typically cheaper and you don't get your hands dirty.

Regardless... when in a war and your option is to spend a lot of money... or not too... to spend money is seen as better.  There was no opting out of the Cold war. 

You should of been there with me.  I was one of the few people i could find who thought attacking Iraq was stupid in the first place.  Everyone else was too caught up in the 9/11 love.

It probably would of collapsed without us spending that extra money.  The question is... what would they have done before it collapsed?  If they thought America was weak. 

Also at the time it should be noted America was in a bit of economic trouble itself.  Blamed at the time on Reagans deficit spending... and trying to control inflation.

Democrats pressured him to fight the recession by raising taxes and focus on fiscal responsibility.  He didn't really... but he did pass a huge tax hike like the democrats wanted.  Eventually the recession fixed itself.

Kinda funny considering.