I failed to recall somebody holding a gun to someone in the white house. The entire expedition was because the US leadership wanted to go, and as always they wanted to rip off from the tax payers by wasting military equipment and other related supplies. Obviously there is nothing worth taking from Afghanistan, so its obvious the only taking from was tax payers. Same for Iraq, the value of the oil taken was not worth it when you consider the "cost".

Most of the 9/11 coverage is a joke and pathetic. Those reporters shoudl be ashamed of themselves for the lack of quality and personal integrity. Nobody needs too see MORE of this hubris.

> Or should the US spend time blaming the UK and Russia for not helping us fight Spain back at the turn of the century before WW1?
First of all America started the war against Spain with their false flag. Secondly Spain was hardly on the same level of evil and danger to the world that the Nazis were.

> Do remember that the US wasn't part of WW2 till Pearl Harbor.
Oh yes the cowards excuse.

> Insisting that because YOUR nation got involved in a war, everyone else was automatically at war is basically stupid...
Yeh those damn british, how evil of them to say fighting the evil called hitler is a dumb option. Better to let them run free and build a nuke or something.

I guess the big mistake is if its for money then its okay any other pretend reason is wrong. If only the Soviets or GDR sold their surveillance information to someone for 1c then all that spying would have been ok. Then again im confused why its wrong for the nazis to have slaves but its ok for apple.

Wow a CEO, one has to wonder why they bothered to hire any engineers and teams of others, when we all know the CEO does everything. Even today i always wondered why Apple spent $5B on that new donut building, surely they could simply fire everyone and let the CEO tim do all the work and give him a $5B bonus.

Seems a lot of posters dont understand the difference between programmar and chip designer.

Wheres the hyperloop and hyperlooop ?

If they can take the credit and give themselves bonuses they should be equally criminally liable for any of the bad stuff

> Suppression fire.
1/2 million bullets to kill someone is a lot of suppression fire Its almost like the people firing dont know how to do their job and given the results its hard to argue against that.

> Basically, the Taliban get to feel like they've done something because they managed to waste their enemies resources and didn't lose anyone, and the US soldiers get to feel like they've done something because the enemy turned tail. The Taliban would lose more people than the US this way still because the US troops are heavily armed and armored and have air support, but the Taliban was relatively unconcerned with human losses. Meanwhile the US troops were relatively unconcerned with losses of ammunition, so that 6 tons of ammunition per dead target is just an issue for accountants
The US sounds by your own words like idiots, who fire and waste time and money for no results and continue to repeat until they lose.

> Basically, the Taliban had no real chance of defeating the US by force and the US had no real chance of defeating an enemy that mostly didn't bother fighting battles against them. Mostly just hit and run stuff to remind them that they were still there and to score political points.
But they did win, havent you watched tv lately ?

Maybe GOOGLE should fire the managers who waste millions on buildings, kitchens, insurance and all that to have workers in the office.

> Do remember that the US wasn't part of WW2 till Pearl Harbor. Insisting that because YOUR nation got involved in a war, everyone else was automatically at war is basically stupid...
My nation ? When did i say what country im from ? IM australian and i can be proud from day one , my nation didnt hide like a coward and stood up for freedom from day one.

LIke always Americans talk a lot but when it really counts you are nothing but cowards, a lot of talk about freedom, ...

> Britain was dying. They did what they needed to do to survive.
Britain wasnt dying it was struggling but it wasnt close to defeat.

Interestingly you fail to appreciate the disgusting behaviour of the US to charge their "friends", friends who were fighting a common enemy. Surely when you face a disgusting threat to humanity like the nazis everybody shoudl be doing their bit, the Soviets were certainly dying by the millions. Yes they were stupid, and Stalin made a lot of dumb, evil mistakes, but charging your friends money is poor form.

> Stalin alone was responsible for more deaths than Hitler (over 20 million not count the forces labor camps), sided with Hitler at the beginning of the war, and only turned on Hitler after Germany invaded them.
Everybody knows that, sure Stalin was evil, and he made some pathetic mistakes like killing god knows how many good generals etc, but that doesnt change the fact America charged Britain and USSR for supplies. America should have been happy they were paying hte price in blood

> Also, if you look into the laws in place at the time, you'll understand why supplies had to be sold versus given (at least before we were officially in the war.)
Stop hiding behind bullshit, those laws still dont hide the fact america could have sold everything for $1 instead of mega bux. Even today you still continue to confirm the disgusting behaviour of making business when your friends are fighting a real evil empire. If anybody did the same today to their family or friends, you wouldnt have any , if your friends house burns down, you dont charge them to for the anything if they stay in your home...

You label the west, but i think you fail to actually point out the correct target is America. Take WW2, America charged the british for the supplies they sent, while the british gave supplies to the Soviets. One side wanted to beat Hitler, the other country wanted to make money first then beat Hitler.

No the conduct of the war was to consume supplies simply to charge the US tax payer. There are crazy stats that make no sense, like 1/2 million bullets for every dead taliban. How exactly is this possible to fire so much just to kill one target ? The other answer which everyone avoids answering is where do the Taliban get their money and equipment, looking at Pakistan and Saudis.

Like most lifes answers, you are not analysing the situation correctly. The first question you need to ask is WHOM is making the decision or action and then the answer becomes obvious. Management of course primarily are most interested in their own job first and foremost. Naturally the next question is will they do anything that goes against their own position, and will they do anything that shows how useless and parasitic they are. Of course they wont, they may do many things but the last thing they will do is write themselves out of existance. Working remotely shows that the office manager is nothing more than a useless overpaid parasite who contributes the least to any endeavour. The more people work remotely the fewer managers you need.
Once you appreciate this, the answer they want everyone back in the office etc becomes obvious, its because they dont want things to change, because well things might change and say why do we have so many managers and what do they actually do ? What exactly is a manager suposed to say they are doing when there are significantly fewer meetings ?