If we went to Iraq/Afghanistan not as liberators but as conquerors

>>34647170

No.

>>34647194
So. . even war by conquest isn't profitable anymore?

>>34647170
Even if the resources themselves made up for the exorbitant amount we spent there, the sanctions that would be put on us by the international community, in addition to the cost in political capital of such a conquest would nullify any gains completely.

>>34647198
Were not allowed to exterminate the locals to pacification anymore, so no. Admit it: if every time an IED went off, the military completely slaughtered 1/10th of the sandfricans in given city, the problems would quickly sort themselves out.

What do you mean, "if"?

>>34647198
Profitable for who? You could argue Iraq/Afghanistan was profitable, but not from resources but from government contractors fleecing the gov/taxpayer.

>>34647224
I mean if we were to go back 100 years and kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out mentality and take all the resources.

>>34647232
No, it would cost to much to even do that in the first place.
T B H many companies that got reconstruction contracts in Iraq didn't even profit as they were spending so much just trying to keep things afloat there.

>>34647170
No. The cost of ongoing pacification operations would greatly exceed the potential economic benefit from raw materials. "Liberation" is cheaper in the long run because the ongoing costs of pacification and stability are offloaded to the puppet state, who then additionally purchases equipment and training from the host country.

The real money isn't in raw materials, it's processing those into something useful or high quality finished goods that the real value is created. A ten pound chunk of raw iron is pretty useless, but forge it into knives, nails, and other things that have a use for people, and it's worth way more.

Oil is only really worth something because of the vast quantities used by advanced countries economies, which makes securing stable sources important. Plus, fracking made North America one of the biggest producers of oil and natural gas in the world, which further defeats the purpose of forcibly exploiting a country for that reason.

Afghanistan has vast reserves of lithim, which is super important in electronics manufacturing and pretty rare, but the complete lack of infrastructure to extract it and get it to the world market and lack of local stability makes developing those resources cost prohibitive.

>>34647170
>If we went to Iraq/Afghanistan not as liberators but as conquerors and colonizers

But thats what you did.

The natural resources of the region would've easily profited over the billions spent on the war itself and afterwards for VA costs, pensions, etc.

The problem here is you're assuming the government would even get an equal amount back paying for the damn conflict and not the fact that private institutions would be getting 99.999999~ of the money.

>>34647220
Also this but morality plays too much in warfare while cops can gun down people freely. 19 year old Lance Corporal/Specialist can't even shoot someone without absolute confirmation of who is shooting at him or anyone near him and so on and so on.

It depends, it would set a precedent to other nations that they can invade weaker nations for resources, and would make the world hate us even more. If I had it my way, I would invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, incorporate them into the US as protectorates or territories. The sheer amount of natural resources we could gain is immense.

TL;DR

>we want stuff from like 120 different countries
>we can't conquer them all
>we need most of the world to at least tolerate us to have a functional industrial economy
>a lot of people wouldn't tolerate it if we went full vae victis on a bunch of sand people

>>34647220
Russia did exactly this in Afganistan in the 80s. We did this on a smaller scale in Vietnam in the 60s and 70s. It didn't work either time because it just radicalizes people who wouldn't have otherwise given enough of a shit to pick up a gun or otherwise resist.

>>34647210
Kinda hard for the rest of the world to sanction the US though. Just about anything big passes through the US markets, which is why foreign banks are so willing to give up info on US citizens doing shady shit. If the banks don't give up the info, the US can just say "ok well, good luck telling your shareholders why you can't trade through US markets anymore."

File: party_in_the_cia.jpg (81KB, 1600x899px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1600x899px

First lesson in the Art of War;
>Don't go to war
The most successful military campaign is an economic victory. making trade and acquisition of resources through diplomacy nets the most profit and minimal loss. Alliances can even be forged by former enemies.

However, if your still up for the good ol fuck em till there ded route, just do what the C.I.A. has been doing and still does for decades.
>Fund local insurgencies
>arm them
>get them in power
>control them as a puppet state
>when puppet state becomes power hungry
>demonize them and invade, setting up new puppet state

Rinse and Repeat

>>34647406
Fair point, but I could still see some sort of tit for tat pushback being done. Regardless, the amount of political capital the US would lose over such a move would be insane.

>>34647220

I guess you never went to Iraq or Afghanistan, but every time I saw a Marine get killed, his squad killed every military age male they saw that looked at all shady, often for up to a week.

File: mcQdUyM.jpg (32KB, 948x669px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 948x669px

>>34647505
That didn't happen.

>>34647170
But you did go as conquerors, political bollocks aside.

>>34647198
No when you can buy the goods in the open market with monopoly money you yourself print.

>>34647170
Iraq perhaps. If enough infrastructure remains, the armed forces keeps things quiet and private companies and venture capitalists are allowed free reign for a few years, maybe.

>>34647359
remind me of when we bombed Hanoi? Oh right, the end of operation linebacker 2, that brought them to the negotiation table and made them too scared to act until the democrats were back in office.

>>34647359
Vietnam wasn't lost on the front line

>>34647548

Uhh, you've clearly never seen a squad of 19-23 year old Marines in a volatile AO react to one of their squad mates getting killed.

>>34647170
>If we went to Iraq/Afghanistan not as liberators but as conquerors and colonizers
how else do you think you went there

as i have heard aphgani say it like that - the british empire invaded them and collapsed, the soviet union invaded them and collapsed and now it's the turn of the usa to collapse. the point is they hate their "liberators" with a passion

The US spent the last 80 years dismantling all white empires, spreading cultural marxism, and forcing mass immigration into the west

No they aren't going to be fucking conquering/colonizing anywhere

Not to mention there is a rapidly declining population in every western country, with a massive third world population we WILL fight a war with sooner or later

>>34647697
It actually was though

>>34647849

I have, and it's not like that.

>>34649104

The British and Soviet collapsed had very little to do with A-Stan. The "graveyard of empires" thing is a meme.

>>34650955

>>>/pol/

Why do you fucked insist on shitting up our board?

File: wtf.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>34651003
>The "graveyard of empires" thing is a meme.

>graveyard of empires happening for the third time
>still thinks its a meme

sure bud

>>34647220
Afghanistan had a population of 40 million before the soviets invaded. When they pulled out 8 years later, the population was 32 million. They killed or removed a million people a year and it didn't work economically.

Also, the whole conquering thing was tried during the crusades. Did you think everyone went home after the first crusade? No, the crusaders stayed, set up crusader nations. They weren't economically viable either, and required constant support from the homelands to stay running. The locals civilians outnumbered the crusaders by 20 to one and they had nothing to trade with them, unless you count carpets.

Over time, the crusader nations in the middle east decayed into city states. Those were eventually destroyed, abandoned or conquered in time. Most were gone after the end of the third crusade, which had ended with a truce, although not before Saladin had mostly secured the holy land. There were something like 8 crusades after that, but they were nothing on the scale of the first 3 and had little affect. The people in the region had gone from the academic Muslims of ancient history to the warlike Muslims of modern history by that point, and would respond much more aggressively to invasions.

They did try to invade Spain, I think. There was some conflict between the Spanish moors of the south and the Christian Spanish of the north (although it was still one country) and the moors reached out to some huscals in the middle east, whom invaded and basically killed moor and christian alike. They were pushed back and that's how things stayed until modern times. You know the story from there. Syria, Merkel, ect.

>>34651111
>There were something like 8 crusades after that, but they were nothing on the scale of the first 3 and had little affect.
they literally sacked the fucking constantinople during the fourth one. never forgive btw, i guess it's the roots why the soviet russia befriended arabs against crusader nations

>>34651082

It's faulty logic in the sense that you confuse correlation with causation. People who eat ice cream are more likely to be eaten by sharks. That's just because people tend to eat ice cream at the beach.

Lots of empires have dealt with the middle east. Lots of empires have been replaced or destroyed. It doesn't mean it was because they dealt with the middle east. Many crusader nations attacked the middle east. France, Germany, England, ect. They all still exist. In England's case, it went on to spawn a vast empire in the colonial era. Where is your god now?

>>34651148
Yea but we are talking about afghanistan, not the middle east. The economies of said invasions have all went to shit after.

>>34647359
It seemed to work for the Germans.

>>34651128

I believe the sacking thing was done mostly because the crusaders couldn't really get any further. They had come all that way and well, they had to sack something. May as well be the biggest and fattest city in the region.

By the way, Constantinople shouldn't have left the back door open if it didn't want to get sacked.

>>34651148
i am with hume here that since we can't directly experience causality itself we can't make any objective statements on causality

anyway aphganistan =/= middle earth

File: afghan_opium_production_1994_2009.jpg (106KB, 920x660px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 920x660px

>>34647170
You did, and it kind of is profitable for the CIA and the pharmaceutical companies who make use of opioids in (((medicine))). Just coincidence that heroin and prescription painkillers abuse is on the rise stateside.

>>34651203
iirc they also again began to rape underage boys which taliban banned too

>>34651203

It's always on the rise. Everything is on the rise. Driving licenses are on the rise. So what?

>>34651111

Re reading this, I suppose I may have spoken too soon. I forgot that world economies are in place today, and that the middle east does have something you can sell to the world. That being oil. It's just a matter of convincing the world to buy all that bloodstained oil, or using it for yourself in the homeland. However, killing everyone in a place like Afghanistan is very expensive. I'm no accountant. Have no idea what the price of killing someone over there is, nor the profitability of all the oil to be claimed.

>>34647849
>Uhh, you've clearly never seen a squad of 19-23 year old Marines in a volatile AO react to one of their squad mates getting killed.
You've clearly never seen a TV camera from the world media and the horrified expressions and outrage of citizens if that thing were to come out.

>>34650955
>The US spent the last 80 years dismantling all white empires
Which ones, because most of them made dumb decisions then shot themselves in the foot.

>>34651003
>The British and Soviet collapsed had very little to do with A-Stan. The "graveyard of empires" thing is a meme.
Besides breaking the bank and attempting to control it through soft and hard power?

File: 1499782168309.jpg (51KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x373px

>>34651082
>graveyard of empires happening for the third time
>third

at least learn to use the fucking memes you are memeing. Alexander, the british, the soviets, and the US would make four.

>>34651334
>Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

File: 1497215208156.jpg (53KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x800px

>>34651399
>ie: does opeas mom know he is a faggot yet?

>>34647170
>exploiting the region for its resources


What fucking resources?

Afghanistan has nothing anybody wants, or the big boys would have taken it already.

"Graveyard of Empires" is right, but they died of fucking boredom.

>>34651430
Except 90% of the world's opium production, which is now guarded by marines.

>>34647170
>liberators
>some people actually believe this

>>34651477
>Is now guarded by Marines
... We pulled them out a few years ago. There's literally a skeleton crew of SOF guys in A-stan right now. You seriously mean to tell me we only invaded for Opium?

>>34651551
Well the non-Pashtuns probably do.

>>34651567
>... We pulled them out a few years ago. There's literally a skeleton crew of SOF guys in A-stan right now
You are so stupid. There are a few thousand marines in Afghanistan right now. Not to mention another 4 thousand military troops on the way.

>>34651624

There's like 8000 troops there and they are advisers. They aren't in combat roles. The only people in combat roles are JSOC dudes and there aren't even many of them left, most of JSOC's assets have been deployed to Syria. You can literally Google this shit and be less wrong than you are now.

>>34651649
>You can literally Google this shit and be less wrong than you are now.
Nah, the advisors you mention are literally marines going out with ANA and ANP doing patrols. Sure theyre not actively out looking for trouble but they sure as hell make it prerogative when with the ANA/ANP. That is how we get away from the "combat role" title and shift it to support role.

>>34647170

Why would we want to destroy Taliban - after spending so much time, resources and money into training them???

>>34647849

Neither have you.

>>34651715

That's wrong. Most of them rarely go outside the wire.

>>34651739
it's like a video game, you make things hard for yourself

>>34651177

How so? Germans got their asses handed to them in every war. Trying to get back at unarmed people backfired.

>>34651177
except it didn't

>>34651748
doubt that

>>34651748
No you're wrong. I speak to these men daily. "Advisors" is bullshit.

>>34651739
>training them
The Taliban did not exist until a few years after the Soviets pulled out. You can blame the Paki ISI for how the Taliban came to be, it was literally a Pakistani proxy that was meant to be a buffer zone.

>>34651832
Then can I see some proofs? Furthermore I doubt only a few thousand men could patrol poppy fields across the entirety of A-Stan.

>>34651923
>You can blame the Paki ISI for how the Taliban came to be
Finally atleast some anon sees that the ISI are fucking insidious to our troops in Afghanistan and to Afghanistan in general

>>34647170
Why can't we pay and arm one of those shit-tier African countries to destroy them and use plausable deniability to deflect the political cap?

>>34647220
You don't have to go that far. Just destroy their means of sustanability (farms) and blockade them so they can't trade for food and they'll quickly be begging for surrender. Not a single man has to be shot.

>>34651567
(((They)) want to keep it a secret, but Bush was a smackhead.

>>34651203
>the Taliban will cut your fingers off for wearing nail polish and random other shit
>stone people to death for various crimes that aren't even considered as such in the west
>ban drug production with barbaric methods of enforcing said ban
>NATO rolls in, removes barbaric law enforcement and replaces it with something more civilised
>crime rises
>must be because NATO benefits from it

You fucking retard.

>>34652070
>stone people to death for various crimes that aren't even considered as such in the west

out of curiosity, why do you think that the western ethics is superior? note i don't even ask why you think they have the last word about what to consider a crime

>>34652088

Beating people to death with rocks without any real due process is very rude.

>>34652110
shooting people with 30mm guns on suspect including the guy who tried to hide under the truck is rude too

>>34652141

At least it's quick. Would you rather we half bury you in the sand and throw 'approved' sized rocks at your body/head?

Seriously in war zones curfews are imposed for a reason, don't go out doing derpy sand people shit after hours. Don't go hiding under trucks either and you will be A okay.

>>34652154
the point it's that you think that some people can be killed without a proper trial on suspect/for violation of some stupid rule... but only if they are killed by burgers

>>34652164

The rules are there to stop you getting shot. Creeping around in the dark and hiding under trucks probably won't get you toasted, watched but not toasted.

However, in sand land, Ahmed recently found out his 3rd female cousin has brought shame on the family by hold hands unsupervised, with a boy from another village. Rumors abound she's had sex with him and cheated on her arranged husband whom she has never met before.

>Better start digging that hole.

You can keep your derpy sand people rules, I'll keep my Western rules.

>>34651013
>facts are /pol/ boogeyman now
like fucking pottery.

>>34652182
you know, ethics is a bitch

rules are also to prevent you from being stoned, comply to them and they won't kill you

we already agreed that the usa may kill people withput any trial on suspect/violating some rules

your next move it's to claim that the western rules are better. try to prove that a rule, forbidding, say, adultery on the pain of death is worse than a rule forbidding to be a man whom apach pilots might consider to be "shady", on the pain of death too

p.s. the guy under the truck on that vid was shot when he tried to hide there after his two buddies were shot, so he was a fleeing potential enemy without any weapon

>>34652224

You got me. Free will is a mistake. Thank Allah that the Muslims are colonizing us and showing us the error of our ways.

Also, I never defended us even being in Afghanistan, much less summary executions. What I don't like is beating people to death with rocks for being a woman out and about without "supervision"

Also, comparing how the US treats people in a active warzone to how sandniggers treat each other normally is a farce. Compare US civil law to tribal "law"