No war is considered a boondoggle from a military perspective. It seems very weird to use it that way. I've heard it used plenty in my civilian career, as in "that "business" trip to London is really a boondoggle." And it kind of was. 😉I've heard people use it to describe pointless wars. Never thought it weird. Boondoggle means something that is a waste of time, unnecessary waste of resources, etc. for no point. True, its traditionally used to refer to projects, programs, etc. but the use with war is understandable--as in, its pretty easy to understand what someone is trying to communicate.How can it be a boondoggle? I don't understand how he could call it that or how you don't see that it's a weird way to describe war.Why can't a war be a boondoggle?War is hardly a "boondoggle." Why would you use that word?Halperin is right that that would be a good deal. However, that Hasnie Twit's Tweet doesn't match the Megatron Twit's Tweet at all. If the Megatron Twit's Tweet is correct, then we're getting a very crappy deal. It's worse than the JCPOA and that wasn't very good at all.
I'm expecting a bad deal but still a lot better than prolonging this boondoggle indefinitely.
Here's someone using it in a Reason article:
But the president has been hinting at a war that sounds oddly similar to other yearslong boondoggles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump celebrated the Iranian war as "the beginning of a new country," hinting at protracted occupation or regime change in Iran. According to him, regime change is "the best thing that could happen."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/war-other-name-141556342.html?guccounter=1
No war is considered a boondoggle from a military perspective. It seems very weird to use it that way. I've heard it used plenty in my civilian career, as in "that "business" trip to London is really a boondoggle." And it kind of was. 😉I've heard people use it to describe pointless wars. Never thought it weird. Boondoggle means something that is a waste of time, unnecessary waste of resources, etc. for no point. True, its traditionally used to refer to projects, programs, etc. but the use with war is understandable--as in, its pretty easy to understand what someone is trying to communicate.How can it be a boondoggle? I don't understand how he could call it that or how you don't see that it's a weird way to describe war.Why can't a war be a boondoggle?War is hardly a "boondoggle." Why would you use that word?Halperin is right that that would be a good deal. However, that Hasnie Twit's Tweet doesn't match the Megatron Twit's Tweet at all. If the Megatron Twit's Tweet is correct, then we're getting a very crappy deal. It's worse than the JCPOA and that wasn't very good at all.
I'm expecting a bad deal but still a lot better than prolonging this boondoggle indefinitely.
Here's someone using it in a Reason article:
But the president has been hinting at a war that sounds oddly similar to other yearslong boondoggles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Trump celebrated the Iranian war as "the beginning of a new country," hinting at protracted occupation or regime change in Iran. According to him, regime change is "the best thing that could happen."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/war-other-name-141556342.html?guccounter=1
Huh. I’ve heard so many GWOT veterans talk about how jaded they got during deployments. What are we doing here? What is the point? This is Iraqi/ Afghani government is never going to work.
They seemed to be describing the purposelessness that animates a “boondoggle”. Not that they didn’t do their duty to the best of their ability but many were aware of the futility in real time.
How is that not a boondoggle from a “military perspective”, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
Blah, blah, blah, I'm an ignorant POS.
I fixed your post for you. This is what I see every time you post, so don't bother.
I'm not sure we should clutter this thread with a long discussion/debate on if a war can be a boondoggle or not or whether it never is from a miltary perspective, but I do find it an interesting discussion to have.Blah, blah, blah, I'm an ignorant POS.
I fixed your post for you. This is what I see every time you post, so don't bother.
It's just not a word commonly used within the military to describe war. We might say pointless, unnecessary, or something along those lines, but boondoggle and the possibility of being killed or comrades being killed don't align.I'm not sure we should clutter this thread with a long discussion/debate on if a war can be a boondoggle or not or whether it never is from a miltary perspective, but I do find it an interesting discussion to have.Blah, blah, blah, I'm an ignorant POS.
I fixed your post for you. This is what I see every time you post, so don't bother.
It's just not a word commonly used within the military to describe war. We might say pointless, unnecessary, or something along those lines, but boondoggle and the possibility of being killed or comrades being killed don't align.I'm not sure we should clutter this thread with a long discussion/debate on if a war can be a boondoggle or not or whether it never is from a miltary perspective, but I do find it an interesting discussion to have.Blah, blah, blah, I'm an ignorant POS.
I fixed your post for you. This is what I see every time you post, so don't bother.
Even if that is true. Why would that preclude a private citizen from using the word and why would you object to it like you did?
Seems like you were looking to take affront. Be less pugnacious. Not everything needs to be a conflict.
Dbm is a good guy so he didn’t fall into the trap. Thank him for that.
Dude, you’re number two on this board’s dumbest poster rankings. You would do yourself a favor by never posting anything.How can it be a boondoggle? I don't understand how he could call it that or how you don't see that it's a weird way to describe war.Why can't a war be a boondoggle?War is hardly a "boondoggle." Why would you use that word?Halperin is right that that would be a good deal. However, that Hasnie Twit's Tweet doesn't match the Megatron Twit's Tweet at all. If the Megatron Twit's Tweet is correct, then we're getting a very crappy deal. It's worse than the JCPOA and that wasn't very good at all.
I'm expecting a bad deal but still a lot better than prolonging this boondoggle indefinitely.
It would help if you understood its definition.
Good for you accepting your position at the top…
@oneeyedundertaker don’t attempt to be witty. You don’t have it in you.
Meanwhile, doesn’t look like a deal will be signed today.
Boondoggle or not, our president was dumb enough to be talked into starting a war and costing us billions of dollars while depleting our ability to defend ourselves in the near future if something else comes up. He likely now realizes the huge mistake he made at our countries expense but too little too late. Just another reason in a long list that prove trump is unfit to be leading this country
Good summary of what might be in the deal, if it’s agreed to.
Blessed day
Under his eye
Blessed be the fruit
May the Lord open!
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Good summary of what might be in the deal, if it’s agreed to.
I wonder if there will be pallets of cash, or if the Iranians will settle for a wire transfer this time?