[Ryzorian]

In world war 2, dureing the break out of Normandy we took 90,000 casualties in 2 months. Casualties in Afganistan are no where near what they were then.

Hell, dureing the Civil war we lost 2,000 men a day for weeks dureing the wilderness campaign. So lets be real about "casualties". They aren't that bad.

I understand that loved ones are dieing here, they need to be honored and their family cared for with the highest reguard, but they volunteered for this, they knew what they were getting into, same as I did when I served.

Spending bills have nothing to do with operational procedure, Washington sets the rules of engagement and that is what is screwing things up now. Most of the cost over runs are becuse of the lame atempt at "nation building" wich is irrelavent. 90% of Afgans were ignorant uneducated mountain folk when we got there and 85% of them will be that way when we leave, it's a complete waste of time to try to "democratize" them. We never should have gotten involved in nation building, we should just be destroying Taliban and Jihadi's.

Iraq, that was kinda a lame thing too. I actually agree it was probably a wasted move tactically speaking. I mean, if it was for oil, how come we didn't get any?. Kinda dumb there.

Unless there's a larger "grand statagy" involved in all of this and Jihadi's, Taliban , Iraq are all just the excuse. I personally suspect we are trying to establish bases in that region of the world for future reference when the oil shortages hit and China and Russia become restless.

If you think about it, the countries we are in are between those countries and the oil fields in Saudia Arabia. We also surround Iran, so we have a sort of "containment" action going on there as well. War's aren't fought willy nilly, they have goals involved. Sometimes long term agenda's...you just have to look for them.

Still, what's with the nation building aspect if we are trying to build a defensive grid for future operations? There's alot more in play here than any of us really know.