War money could be redirected towards education, medical services, housing, rebuilding out dated infrastructure, and a million other things like rebuilding New Orleans, feeding the poor or at lest making sure children in school have the proper nutrition to actually learn something. Man, there are thousands of things could be done with all that wasted money.
Wars sending U.S. into ruin
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Not bad, but I was referring to the tens of thousands of now unemployed mechanical, electrical and aerospace engineers working now. Those people who actually lead our civilization forward. (dump the AMA, and or CMA and we all have better medical)
In a country of over 200 million, they don't exactly constitute mass unemployment--assuming a background in high-tech couldn't get them work in the civilian aerospace industry of course.
That said, a drop in defence spending would inevitably result in a drop in the civilian aerospace market, simply because it's so heavily subsidized by the defence industry, specifically aerospace. What can I say? Learn to design/fix trains.
Of course, all this talk about reduction is bs because the US needs to have the option to intervene when the usual methods of coercion fail.
The US is an ambitious, powerful regime that dominates the global economic system and states that don't do what the boss says need to be punished. Pretty simple concept no? A passive US foreign policy (i.e. non-militaristic) is therefore just not realistic as long as the state is what it is.
The US system of economic domination is so effective that other states have become completely dependent on the US for stability, so to suggest that wars will ruin the US (specifically, the country's elite establishment) is nonsense because it implies that the whole world will tank because the US maintains order.
The US goes to war with uncooperative poor countries with something valuable who can't defend themselves, not well-armed big players who's elites also profit immensely on the US's economic success.
As long as the US stays as far ahead in military tech as it presently is (implying more, not less expansion in that area), the global dynamic isn't likely to change.
The Roman Empire didn't fall because of wars, it fell because it stopped expanding, having hit it's peak and lacked a sustainable economy to keep it from imploding due to lack of momentum.
thats true i remember reading that when the romans stopped conquering there were less slaves around etc to do work
No we don't want to be in war, but in times you have to do things you don't like. i can guarantee you 100% no one wanted to go to war. Putting taxes on middle family would hurt the enomci even more.
You can't say that about Bush and his war crime buddies. He wanted his illegal war in Iran to finish the job his dad didn't complete.
I am surprise you all igore the fact that the persident of .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfghanistanAfghan has said he needed more troops himself. There were millions killed and 9/11 war is not know as peace, Once you go to war you die for you "country'
First I mentioned Iraq not afganistan. Read the posts before you reply.
I'm surprised all you people south of the border voted the warmonger (bush) in for a second term. I'm also surprised that they are not aware that his war in Iran was personal. He was quoted in Time magazine as saying about Hussein "after all this is the man who tried to kill my dad". WMDs were a lie.
Last edited:
Not to be too nit picky, you are talking about Iraq and yes, Bush would have liked nothing more than to include Iran in the debacle. And if he had not gone into Iraq and Afghanistan, the American and probably the world economy would have collapsed from the slow down in war machinery. Like it or not, the bank owned military/industrial complex owns the world economy, and I'm not just talking about the American military/industrial complex because bankers know no borders or boundaries. They control the world economy and therefore world governments.
Cliffy - i agree with you with iraq but not afgan iraq never had any governs the problem is how to take the troops out and making sure those survive men can handle it. i mean i might not full story but i got more insight of it. first of bush is not in office anymore so get over the fact he gone. and don't say he went to war just to kill millions of people.
If you talking to someone else my bad. but if not, please listen, we had plenty of people who died 9/11 nato is said that if were are attack we help are friends...
yet half of the nato don't want to support it. Is some of this for oil yes, but that's not totally our fault there more to it.
I remember watching the video for iraq of stauts being tore down and cheering. I support troops and the war.
If you talking to someone else my bad. but if not, please listen, we had plenty of people who died 9/11 nato is said that if were are attack we help are friends...
yet half of the nato don't want to support it. Is some of this for oil yes, but that's not totally our fault there more to it.
I remember watching the video for iraq of stauts being tore down and cheering. I support troops and the war.
Then perhaps you should pay for it then.....if you can. Trillions....gone...for two wars that were not necessary. Someone has to pay for it and since you want it so bad then they should start with you. the problem with Americans and war is you never think about the after or the consequences....you just jump right in.
Morons.:roll:
Btw....to help you out with your disability perhaps you should use the spell checker provided with this forum...not an insult...just a suggestion.
Of course we all know bush is not in office any more, he should have been gone after his first term, but the yankee morons put him back in office. Now you guys have a mess, just like you had in Viet Nam. And what is the purpose of going into a war if it is not to kill? Warmongers!!
Entirely false.
The entire premise of Bolshevism was to use any means possible to hasten the "inevitable" global revolution of the proletariat. That meant using any means available, peaceful and non to destabilize the "corrupt" capitalists. There were another group of Russian communists/socialists/whatever you wish to categorize them as, who believed that the rule of the masses would come essentially through peaceful evolution (the Mensheviks) but Lenin and his cronies purged them.
Oops! Correction: it should read "defence complex" (i.e. the present form of the Pentagon system) not "defence industry" (the industry doesn't subsidize itself).
You're right, few Americans actually wanted to go to war; Americans (as a people) aren't big on war and have generally not liked any of the wars their country has been involved in since WW2.
There was no need to go to war, as far as the American public was concerned. Nor was there a legitimate justification for it. Saddam's dictatorship was uncooperative had become more of a hindrance than a benefit, so he was removed.
Specifically, his dictatorship was simply not efficient at keeping the oil flowing to the right places, the whole Kuwait adventure (of which Kuwait was hardly an innocent victim btw) and he wasn't enough of an economic buffer to Iran. Democratic puppet states have proven to much more efficient and easier to control, as the US has proven in Latin America. That's what the war was for; absolutely nothing to do with ridding Iraqis of a tyrant.
The only reason why Americans go along with this bs is because of ignorance; a person who lacks knowledge of the way things work, who is brought up in an environment that penalizes truly independent thought and will, is easy to manipulate. Those who aren't duped are left helpless to do anything about it due to lack of popular support.
We're not exactly breaking IQ records up here either.
barney i am going to disagree with you about not going to war. Cause since the us was fighting soviet union , we left our weapons there. so we are at fault for half of the stuff that has happen. Second, millions of people die... just not in the usa or london there were plenty of attacks.
there a reason we went to war. Now with bush its a bit different the way it was handle was the wrong way. But he also made the right decision. I rather listen to those people who had family members die if they support the war or not.
That will have much more meaning to me. Just cause millions of people don't like us going to war, it just a fact things like this are going to happen. As long as i am gone before the biggest... next war happening i want to be in peace.
Now there plenty we can look into did bush do it for oil... yes even my brother who fought in wars said we got enough oil
there a reason we went to war. Now with bush its a bit different the way it was handle was the wrong way. But he also made the right decision. I rather listen to those people who had family members die if they support the war or not.
That will have much more meaning to me. Just cause millions of people don't like us going to war, it just a fact things like this are going to happen. As long as i am gone before the biggest... next war happening i want to be in peace.
Now there plenty we can look into did bush do it for oil... yes even my brother who fought in wars said we got enough oil
He made the right decision by invading a country (Iraq) on false pretenses (non existant weapons of mass destruction), just so he could get one man (Hussein) , and killing thousands in the process?
The weapons were meant for use against Iran. Russia had little to do with it.
Most of those weapons were in a state of decay by the time it even became an issue. (And it still isn't clear what actually happened with the Kurdish thing.) The war couldn't be justified by WMDs because there was no clear evidence that there were any hidden stockpiles of new weaponry and it had already been quite well established that the small-scale WMD program in Iraq had stopped a while before.
WMD-wise, nothing had to happen. The UN was handling it until the US put a stop to the whole thing prior to invasion.
And this makes perfect sense; after years of sanctions, Iraq was a broken state by the time the US occupation forces got there (notice there was barely a fight--none of the 'glory' of the Gulf War).
If you mean the families of US soldiers that died, most of the deaths were after occupation (i.e. victims of the follow-up Insurgency). US death toll was virtually nil against what little remained of the regime's forces during the 'official' war.
...What's more, you can't justify going to war for victims of said war. (And frankly, death is an inevitable result of war when you're a soldier. Definitely not a reason to hold a grudge, especially when you're the attacker.)
But speaking of the families of dead soldiers; every example I am aware of has been of hatred for the war itself.
(And if you mean the victims of 9/11...sigh...Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with that--no serious debate on that exists. Sorry but you were duped on that one.)
If you mean internationally, try billions. But yeah, millions of Americans would certainly be accurate.
If by things like this, you mean friendly little 'interventions,' then yeah I'd have to agree; they'll continue as long as the US remains as it is. Count on a new one every decade or so.
Just to be clear, people are not against ousting dictators; even though the US in Iraq has implications for the entire world, the public mainly protested because of the humanitarian toll lacking legitimate justification (i.e. the dictatorship was already on its last legs and the country in ruins; the war was unnecessary and therefore a crime against the civilian population).
It doesn't take much to figure that out; it's only the world's largest easily accessible/refineable source. (I don't think it's a secret as even the mainstream media alluded to the need to ensure stability in this important area.) Saddam was removed because he threatened control over that--control over a primary energy reserve ensures that there cannot be any global energy program independent of the US system.
The other big reason was to corner Iran, and of course, it strengthens Israel's position in the region.
I don't know why you would bring a soldier's perspective into it; being in the field doesn't clarify much in this case.
This is funny because outside of North America, it wouldn't even occur to anyone to doubt that the war wasn't over oil (i.e. a resource war).
Here we go you liberal psychos, you have no idea what you have done. Don't worry, we will fix it as usual.
Ready, aim, hold your fire
The recent battle in Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province was a key test case for new rules of engagement that emphasized protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents. The town was taken, but whether that was because of the new rules or despite them remains to be seen.
The rules of engagement are probably the most restrictive ever seen for a war of this nature.
EDITORIAL: Ready, aim, hold your fire - Washington Times
Ready, aim, hold your fire
The recent battle in Marjah in Afghanistan's Helmand province was a key test case for new rules of engagement that emphasized protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents. The town was taken, but whether that was because of the new rules or despite them remains to be seen.
The rules of engagement are probably the most restrictive ever seen for a war of this nature.
EDITORIAL: Ready, aim, hold your fire - Washington Times