06
Oct
08

Are modern wars “unwinnable” ?

It’s taken me about 2 hours and several re-boots to  get this up, so forgive the brevity. Just be grateful you aren’t sitting with me and therefore haven’t heard how blue it’s’ possible to turn the air.

My starting point is here .  The British Commander in Afghanistan says the war against the Taliban cannot be won……the best that can be hoped for , says Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, is to take the sting out of the situation and leave a tenable situation for the Afghan army.

It got me thinking about recent conflicts. Who “won” out of Russia and Georgia  ?  This article says it wasn’t Russia, while this says it wasn’t Georgia either.

Did Hezbollah “win” over Israel in 2006 ? Yes, they did, says this piece . No, Israel triumphed, says this piece in the Washington Post, quoting George Bush.

 Actually, it was a draw according to this blog

And is anyone “winning” in Iraq ?


44 Responses to “Are modern wars “unwinnable” ?”


  1. 1 parth guragain,nepal
    October 6, 2008 at 11:50

    modern war can be winnable but it requires excessive use of force.which can’t be justified in this modern age as innocent civilian will be killed.still if the war is won it gives rise to years of bloody conflict.so best way is talks to solve problem.

  2. October 6, 2008 at 11:53

    I agree with parth -War requires excessive use of force,-But the only urgly part been that so many innocent civilians will be killed.

  3. 3 Katharina in Ghent
    October 6, 2008 at 12:00

    Modern day wars are usually not between two different countries, but, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, between a country and a partisan group. This is much more difficult to fight, because the guy that’s just standing around on the street today may be the guy tomorrow who plants a road side bomb – but there’s no way to find out. He may be on your side or not, he may even be on your side today but tomorrow you happen to kill his kid and he will support the other group. In this atmosphere the only way to “win” would be to exterminate the entire population, just to be sure, and who would want to go down that road??? The only way to really win there would be to convince the population that they have less to loose if they support you instead of the others, but that’s extremely difficult to achieve.

    As far as Russia and Georgia are concerned, nowadays the international community doesn’t allow for changed borders through wars, so to fight a war over territory is futile from the beginning. Both sides will loose – lives, equipment, money and credibility.

  4. October 6, 2008 at 12:07

    It depends on a few things including where the “play ground” is, how high the stakes are and how far propaganda can go. Definitions and perception of victory or loss, varies on both sides of the conflict with each side keen to claim victory irrespective of the situation on ground.

  5. 5 Pangolin-California
    October 6, 2008 at 12:13

    Iraq and Afghanistan are not really wars but occupations. You can no more “win” an occupation than you can eliminate crime. If you do manage to quell all active resistance new cells will emerge and increase in activity.

    Short of sendng American troops and their families to reside in these countries and integrate with the locals there is no hope. Remember everybody who invaded China came away more Chinese than they could possibly imagine.

  6. 6 Yanga
    October 6, 2008 at 12:16

    Modern War can not be won by any millary interventtion.The war becomes a commercial market all those who seem to be fight against this war have their own interest.Modern war comprises of so many things among them are the HIV AIDS,Poverty Civil War Power struggle to mentioned but a few.Modern war is diverse it is narrowed.

  7. 7 Robert
    October 6, 2008 at 12:24

    If one side is a guerrilla or terrorist cell then the war will never be winnable be either side. Compared with the past the resources needed for such an ‘army’ to stay in the fight are tiny. A small group of individuals with civilian mobile phones and an internet connection can coordinate attacks over a wide area in their spare time. Without a large logistic train or a fixed base of operation this ‘army’ is impossible to destroy, so long as one survives the cell continues. But these cells do not have the resources to defeat a large conventional army either. They cannot do the permanent damage that would force the opposing side out; all they can do is to stay in the fight.

  8. October 6, 2008 at 12:31

    I’m going to go ahead and third parth’s comment.

    Well said.

  9. 9 Bob in Queensland
    October 6, 2008 at 12:46

    A modern war between two conventional armies is probably winnable–but trying to defeat a small band of determined terrorists can’t succeed and never has. It’s nothing to do with it being “modern war”–look at how resistance fighters managed to tie up thousands of soldier in previous conflicts. As the security services are fond of saying: “in a war on terrorism, government forces have to succeed 100% of the time; the terrorist only has to get through once”.

  10. 10 Nofal Elias
    October 6, 2008 at 13:27

    Yes I agree with everybody is that war against freedom fighter are not winable. The longer the occupation force stays in the country the less likely you can win it.
    Because for every civilians dies you find the resistance grows by at least 2.
    In Iraq in 2003 the freedom fighters group estameted at 30,000, 3 years later, it was estimated at 200,000.
    Aggressors maybe able to the battle but can never win the war.

  11. 11 Roberto
    October 6, 2008 at 13:42

    RE “”The British Commander in Afghanistan says the war against the Taliban cannot be won””
    —————————————————————————————————

    ——– What the general means to say is that the modern ways of the way the US conducts operations cannot win against the Taliban because of modern politics.

    Guaranteed if you put Ulysses Grant, Ghengis Khan, Alexander the Great, Harry Truman ect in charge of US assets, the Taliban would be wiped out in the figurative fortnight.

  12. 12 Nofal Elias
    October 6, 2008 at 13:52

    @Roberto

    What are you trying to say, US should use Nuclear against Afghanistan and wipe the whole population?

  13. 13 abba ishaku
    October 6, 2008 at 14:22

    Of couse you can’t win a way like this when all you do is to kill innocent civilians(women,children and old people).There is too much propagander and much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq.The USA and it’s allies should leave Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

  14. 14 Kelsie in Houston
    October 6, 2008 at 14:23

    Defining victory in a modern conflict is essential to declaring a war “winnable” or “unwinnable.” However, in the modern age of media coverage and scrutiny, many of the tactics utilized to secure a “win” in a war–such as “extended interrogation techniques” or the high numbers of civilian deaths and damage–make many “victories” Pyrrhic.

  15. 15 Dennis@OCC
    October 6, 2008 at 14:37

    I hate to say it! But yes, that wars in the modern era are un-winnable….

    Dennis

  16. 16 Roberto
    October 6, 2008 at 14:48

    RE “”What are you trying to say, US should use Nuclear””
    ————————————————————————————————————–

    ——- Clearly I stated modern politics interferes with the way the US conducts war. I also inferred by my selection of previous highly successful military leaders that such politics did not interfere in their campaigns.

    My observation says absolutely nothing as to what the US “should or should not” do.

    No need to state the obvious of what “would” happen if the US nuked this region. Taliban would be turned to glass. The US could turn it into a smouldering ash heap with conventional non nuclear bombs. I would think this would be self evident, but I’ve noticed some will never see the self evident in front of their very noses.

    We already know what happened with the US did nothing.

  17. 17 Dr.A.K.Tewari
    October 6, 2008 at 15:05

    It is the support of international community to US initiative to ruin the terrorists breeding grounds for ever.There should be no place in a civilized world for those who kill innocent people even to meet their just couse.The US national interests would be also acheived if the initiative continued till it is reapping the silent and active support of all those who hate the approach being adopted by terrorists to meet out their goal.

  18. 18 Jonathan
    October 6, 2008 at 15:14

    The US general in Iraq said something like “Victory is a word I don’t use.” Wise man. Without a clear objective, you can’t define victory, you won’t achieve it, and you wouldn’t recognize it if you did.

    After years of the Vietnam war, someone said, “Let’s declare victory and get out.” I think it was meant as a joke, but eventually that’s what happened.

    The old concepts of winning and losing no longer apply.

    Jonathan
    San Francisco

  19. October 6, 2008 at 16:35

    Brigadier is Right
    TEHRAN – Sir Jeremy Greenstock was saying it as early as 2004 in Iraq. The story in Afghanistan is very much the same. Unless there is some coordination between allied forces in Afghanistan or Coalition Forces in Iraq, the outcome of both conflicts is uncertain.
    Former British Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen recently echoed the same theme: Britain and US had no plans for the aftermath of the Iraq war.
    We all tried so hard to call it the War of Liberation, but was it? Perhaps the issues were not so clear-cut in Iraq? Afghanistan was easier: Get the warlords out and everything would be alright, but it didn’t turn out that way.
    Britain has grown wiser and Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith is talking sense. Taleban and elements of al-Qaeda were in Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago and negotiations have began with Afghan counterparts. Pakistan is the other side of the equation, and things will get worse in Islamabad before a final settlement in the region is reached.
    Iran is also worried with constant skirmishes with militant splinter groups in Baluchistan. Tehran is being called little Kabul, with hoards of Afghans arriving each day and huddling together on street corners looking for work. Afghan refugees is one problem but 10,000 Tons of opium produced in Afghanistan and 5,000 Tons sold and consumed in Iran, is another dilemma.

  20. 20 Rachel in California, USA
    October 6, 2008 at 17:06

    The only way to win is not to play the war game.
    Find another way to solve the problem, one that doesn’t involve killing people.

  21. 21 steve
    October 6, 2008 at 17:09

    Yes, in this world of political correctness, there won’t be any more all out wars, which was necessary to win. Imagine if the PC world of today was fighting against Nazi germany and Japan, things would have turned out very differently. Now that nations care more about bad media press than actually winning, you’ve basically made fighting in a war a pointless endeavor, when sometimes, some wars are actually just, though many have not been. Fighting with one arm tied behind your back makes sure you won’t win.

  22. 22 Philippa
    October 6, 2008 at 17:49

    I also agree with Parth, and to elaborate on his point, this:

    Nowadays, it’s weapons that produce wars, all of them un-winnable. The arms industry must be declared illegal, ASAP. Every single one of its share-holders must be held legally and criminally responsible for the consequences of their investments and profits.

  23. 23 steve
    October 6, 2008 at 17:51

    @ Philippa

    Including people whose 401ks include stocks in defense industry?

  24. 24 Philippa
    October 6, 2008 at 17:54

    @ Steve

    Yes. But obviously, starting (for a change) with BIG share-holders, rather than small.

  25. 25 steve
    October 6, 2008 at 17:55

    @ Philippa

    But a shareholder is a shareholder. Why distinguish if they are all making money from the evil weapon makers? You said “every single one of it’s shareholders”. now you only want the big shareholders?

  26. October 6, 2008 at 17:56

    I say who ever (dividend lovers’ puppet) leader decide to go to war with another country must move to that country with the ultimate goal to who ever gets kill first ( leaders & their immediate familly) wins the war inter the conqueror or the protector. If the protector wins than the defeated country citizens must repay for all the damage cost. If the conqueror wins he (dividedn lovers’ puppet) must appease the population (hostile subject) first than create favorable election process to choose a new leader of course in the process. He can influence (as he wish) the election process in his country favor, his immediate family must also be part of the initial move to neutral ground to the country they wish to attach… .

    That is how wars should be initiated, conducted & ultimately won….

  27. 27 Philippa
    October 6, 2008 at 18:01

    @ Steve

    Let’s not try to split hairs on this one. I say “every one” because I don’t believe that ignorance (“I don’t know where my money is invested”) can be used as an excuse anymore. Certain banks are ethical, certain pension funds are ethical, and others are not. People must inform themselves, and divest, or switch over, based on their findings.

    However, historically speaking, those most responsible for crimes are usually considered most worthy of prosecution. Look at the Nurenberg trials, look at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, etc. They try to go for the figureheads. This makes sense to me.

  28. October 6, 2008 at 18:14

    I say Divdend Lovers are the true Tyrants of this New World Order, time to by boy club the market is down time to buy dividend lovers buy buy buy..buy until you are happy…buy buy and buy some more dividend lovers.

    Dividend lovers are the true Tyranst of this New World Order….

  29. October 6, 2008 at 18:17

    Bring back the Brittan Wood system,Gold must be re-established as the only international currency among nations.Nations have to rewrite their social contracts with their citizens.Nationalizations of natural’s resources.World standardization of accounting by worldwide implementation of one accounting system (software),create one world body to standardize,regulate & audit accounting practices around the world.To eliminate any theory of private investment,any new technology,innovation,sciences or any other form of advancement for mankind must be initiate by government not private investors who are in direct conflict with public safety vs. returns of their investment like Hitler & his SS. Today’s tyrants are the dividend lovers of this world who are shortsighted on returns over social, collective & human concerns threw regulations not deregulations.Eliminated past inter-government treaties that strip away,limited governments to protect & benefit their citizens over share holders’ values.

    Today’s dividend lovers & war mongers have no clue about the real economies of this New World Order.Their utopians ideologies of the free hand are falling apart, as destabilization as oppose to the free hand utopian stabilization theories of capitalist. The world leaders have no clue on how their New World Order economic systems are to react next.We are witnessing the end of dividend lovers’ way of life of pirateering & exploitation of the less fortunate. This economic crisis is just the tip of the iceberg as physical economies have been deteriorating for the last forty years as dividend lovers took controls of crowns & government run companies,by deregulations the dividend lovers eliminated the public interest in favor of small interest groups with the biggest purse,One word “Freedump”

  30. 30 Ogola Benard
    October 6, 2008 at 18:36

    such statements not only give a guide to the enemy but shows how weak a commander is? The former ISI boss once made a related talk on the same show. what is that, that is hidden from the public?

  31. 31 Hamza Bendani
    October 6, 2008 at 19:52

    The solution to war? Its right under your noses people. Peace and education is the solution to any war anywhere in any time.
    If people are correctly educated and given the chance to know the true value of peace, they will obviously be more open to the world and eventually develop an understanding to different cultures. This way people will not only be friendly to their next door neighbors, but also to other people and countries.

  32. 32 Tom (of Melbourne)
    October 7, 2008 at 02:46

    Whether the war is winnable depends on the objectives that were laid out. The US could claim to win the 1991 Gulf War as their aim was simply to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, which they managed convincingly. Back then they decided not to move onto Baghdad, thereby saving them from the debacle they are facing today.

    Bush has set the objective of the war on terror to be to defeat terrorism wherever they are in the world. This is as unreachable as to defeat anyone anywhere who don’t like us.

  33. 33 Tom (of Melbourne)
    October 7, 2008 at 03:08

    @ steve re political correctness,

    When a war has to be fought, I don’t think a government cares much about being politically correct, especially in the face of people from other countries. In fact, political correctness is a potent tool of the politicians themselves. When an enermy is identified it will be demonised and eventually become politically expedient to fight and destroy it.

  34. 34 Matthew
    October 7, 2008 at 11:25

    Yes,

    If you’re going to try and use an overwhelming military force to bludgeon THE RESISTANCE into submission, throw sweets and candy bars at children as you trundle by in your tanks and military vehicles, and think “We’ve got this one in the bag.” Then events tell you otherwise aka Iraq, and previously aka Vietnam – “The Ten Thousand Day War” where nearly 7 million tonnes of bombs were dropped by the US on the continent of Indochina between 1965-1973. America lost more than 55,000 soldiers in combat operations in Vietnam, with 250,000 wounded. What a resounding success! The US were defeated and left with its tail between its legs and witnessed a truly chastening experience upon the American people and the American psyche.
    Roberto, you nuke Afghanistan and you don’t think for one moment the automatic reprisals upon Americans all over the world, never mind the immediate backlash on soldiers and all US military bases. Even to contemplate it is sheer madness and shows the utmost arrogance. You’re obviously unaware of the geography of the region, just like against the Soviets when the Mujahadeen carried out highly successful hit and run operations upon the enemy, not forgetting one of the chief commanders being Osama bin Laden supported and funded by the CIA. The British Empire couldn’t contend with the terrain, the non-defeatist attitude and mentality that prevails to this day, no matter how many carpet bombing runs you carry out they’ll retreat into the caves and wherever they have to until its safe to come out again, regroup and then hit back really hard conventionally and with devastating effect!

  35. October 7, 2008 at 15:03

    A war is only un-winnable when there is no goal, objective, exit strategy at the end of it.

    People are looking, wrongly as most do, at the Taleban as some form of terrorist organisation/freedom fighters. They are not. They are a tribe in Afghanistan who – if anyone had bothered to look into it, could have been persuaded to leave power.

    If anyone would like to take a look at that country you will see why it is so hard to conquer – big, up-in-the-sky-things. If you want to beat the Taleban on a tactical basis you have to take the high ground and work down – and sit on that Pakistan border so none can retreat there – but for all this you need thousands of additional troops. What the end game is of that? Total annihilation of that tribe – with the usual complications that brings about.

    A policy of hit them first before they hit us is what makes a war un-winnable from the very start. Do remember – no two democracies have ever gone to war against each other – that says more than what you can do with a gun.

  36. 36 Matthew
    October 7, 2008 at 17:25

    Valid points Will,

    But in practically every case the US takes on what is “categorically classified” as a guerrilla fighting force, a terrorist enemy/freedom fighter group, an insurgency, a foreign uprising that is hell bent on subverting the political status quo of a country, as imposed upon them from the outside, but not visible to us in most cases. You so rightly pointed out one person’s perception and interpretation as to what the opposition is representing is endlessly open to question. But when establishing one picture of the “UNDOUBTED ENEMY” and “THE ENEMY IN OUR MIDST” via the majority of western media, then there is very little room for manoeuvre. The “OUR CAUSE IS JUST” mantra will garner support from all elements of the presiding government and in turn be supported by the vast majority of the public when presented in such a manner: IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO WALK DOWN OUR STREETS IN PEACE AND RELATIVE SAFETY, CONDUCT OUR DAILY LIVES IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND WELLBEING THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS ALL OUR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART AND WILL OVERSEE THE SECURITY OF OUR SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT FOREVERMORE, AMEN, will instill itself in the public mindset and will do the bidding of those in power. Kick any person, society, tribe, a cause just or otherwise, a belief system that isn’t yours, a nation from pillar to post, then don’t be at all surprised at what might occur at any given time.
    It won’t matter how many Afghan mountain summits you cast your gaze from upon into the vast valleys below, to try and espy and root out THE ENEMY. If you alienate from without to within and no matter what modern methods of fighting war are at your disposal you will not win. You can’t fight a belief, a strength of will and mindset to overcome and rise up against oppressors and repel all boarders from the outside at any cost to the people. You’re losing from the very outset of conflict and from when the first shot has been fired in anger.

  37. 37 Roberto
    October 7, 2008 at 17:51

    RE “” Roberto, you nuke Afghanistan ….. You’re obviously unaware of the geography “”
    —————————————————————————————————-

    ——– My dear, what have you gotten on about now?

    I knew more about geography than 99.99% of the people in the world, so I’m plenty aware that you’ve just made up some nonsense to attribute to me.

    I’ve already repeated the obvious, I never made a suggestion of what the US should or shouldn’t be doing in war. The US was widely condemned about it’s Iraq policies before the 2003 invasion, so really all this nonsense about the world condemning the US now or for more aggressive actions is just more of the same.

    As far as Vietnam goes, the US withdrew from a politically untenable war it won 95% of the battles in and inflicted 20 to one kill ratio on the NViets. It was more like a fledgling democracy was lost rather than any war. The US public was fed up with the lies and the massive destruction done to prop up a government that had been infiltrated with communists. Again, had the US wanted, a couple of nukes on Hanoi would have stopped the Vietnam war.

    Sure, it’s popular to say the US lost the war, but it was never an official war to begin with, instead starting with military advisors and grew out of control with the Johnson administration.

    No matter that may have started a massive war with Russia and China, that’s a different cup of tea, the point being the US never threw full assets into Vietnam and withdrew a successful military operation because of the failed politics of it’s ally, the South Vietnamese..

    Now are you gonna come back and accuse me of recommending we should have nuked Hanoi? YUP, probably.

  38. 38 Matthew
    October 8, 2008 at 04:13

    Roberto,

    You’re rather condescending in your manner, no matter that’s you prerogative as an individual.
    If you care to read what I said was for you – “Even to contemplate the idea is sheer madness and shows the utmost arrogance.” That is not a direct accusation at all. But for you or anyone to think in that way is not really displaying any higher level of intelligence which you so obviously possess, a clear foresight or any attempted viewpoint and insight as how best to tackle the problem at hand is it now? I’m happy for you that you know your geography inside out. That was a misplaced assumption on my behalf and I stand corrected.
    Though by your very mentioning of “nuke” and the “US could turn it into a smouldering ash heap with conventional non nuclear bombs” displays I think your total disregard and disrespect for a nation such as Afghanistan by discussing the issue in such clear cut and explicit terms, and for it to be given consideration in such a restrictive theater of war. Also, that it theoretically would have solved a win or lose situation in Vietnam is somewhat perplexing. YOU WROTE THIS and bought it to others attention, I did not. People are entitled to read into it what they may perceive as your standpoint no matter the hypothetical positioning. IF YOU DON’T THINK IT THEN DON’T SAY IT! One has to suppose that by you merely discussing those possibilities then you’re prepared to entertain the situation revealing itself one day, and not giving a damn either way. Cont’d.

  39. 39 Matthew
    October 8, 2008 at 05:39

    Roberto,

    The US has in its possession a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, which if it so chooses can launch at any given moment, and there are some documented very near misses by previous administrations that were extremely close to initiating the process, until at the last moment the order was to stand down. And according to your constitution you are obliged to release this information into the possession of the nation within a relatively short space of time. Britain can’t afford this luxury to the people, certainly not within the space of one generation and so we are totally unaware as to there ever having been an instance of a British government in such a predicament. I believe we are party and have access to “Top Secret” documents and information after a 50 years or more period has passed.
    Now according to the Bush Doctrine “It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.” This is the most recent and updated version – 2006. I think this is a highly dangerous premise to operate from. I wonder if you’re entirely happy with a somewhat rigid stance as this. And I say again you can’t defeat a BELIEF, NEVER SAY DIE MENTALITY, WILLING SACRIFICE AT ANY COST TO THE NATION and a WILL TO OVERCOME ALL ODDS IN THE FACE OF THE ENEMY mindset. You just can’t, no matter the firepower capability in your possession.

  40. 40 Mark
    October 8, 2008 at 12:43

    History shows that even with complete victory, military action has rarely ended a conflict.

    Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was a direct cause of WWI.

    WW 1 was a direct cause of WW 2.

    In Iraq right now, we are still dealing with the results of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, 100 years later, not to mention the remnants of the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s.

    Then there is Israel. Victories against Arabs in 1948, 1967, 1973, have made peace more difficult to achieve. Also Israel now feels the international community tying its hands.

  41. 41 John in Germany
    October 8, 2008 at 14:14

    A war ended properly today would be a complete nuclear burn out.

    So please let them flex thier mighty muscles, and keep on picking at each other. Sadly so many innocent people die, go hungry, and get sick due to the muscle flexing.

    History tells us that power madness and greed, causes most wars. And there are power hungry and greedy people all over this sad world.

    Yes us homo sapiens are the cause of all conflicts, and will we learn? no!. It hasn’t worked to date, and it wont work in the future. Nieghbours fight for years because of 50cm of hedge, so how the hell can any form of proper peace accour within our big blue planet.

    Makes me mad when i hear it is being done for us, so that we can live in peace, in one way they are right, if your dead you are in peace. You know of course normally those at the front die first,. but whats normal these days?.

    One thing is certain they are all concentrating thier energy with the finance dissaster. Might help a bit.

    Best wishes
    John in Germany

  42. 42 John LaGrua/New York
    October 8, 2008 at 18:17

    War between nuclear nations is insane.Even the threat of use against a non-nuclear state coulfd set off a unstopable chain reaction leadinf to Horror.Small conflicts cannot be ended by mlitary force as intrusion into a sovereign state.evokes violent reaction fronm the populace..
    Afganistasn and Iraq could not be more clear .Arrogance and deceit have led the US ino a bottomless pit,as it did the Russuans and British before.Those who advocate force like our dear friend Steve never go near the danger. Perhaps ,I am wrong and he and others like him will surprise us with and announcement of their enlistment .The Marines need only a few good men..

  43. 43 John in Germany
    October 9, 2008 at 08:34

    HI John La Grua.

    You are right about war and aggressiveness, but every effort to bring thing to an end peacefully, seem to be of little use. And good results last no more than it takes for the medium to drop reporting.

    I believe that it is correct to try and relieve people of the despots that lead them. Those that suffer have no lobby, and are mostly not capable of defending themselves. If some one tries to help them, he or she would be immediately stamped as a communist .. So, do those in power in a lot of countries really want the best for the poor, sick, and hungry?, Not really, other wise there would be no poor, sick, or hungry.

    Armaments cost a lot—but they also keep a lot of people at work, which is good for the economy. Most technical advances come from the armaments race, or space race. Its a mad circle-no end.

    John in Germany


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: