You mean like Nash, Hall, and Hogan?
(PLEASE tell me someone out there got that reference!)
Obama launching World War 3 !!
- Thread starter wind chill
- Start date
(PLEASE tell me someone out there got that reference!)
Nope not me. I'll never be one of those guys. I don't think you'd be able to make any serfs out of those guys that follow Nascar either. ( or Green Bay Packer fans)
Don't worry I will buy one of your family for a slave and will let them work only 22 hours a day. I can't wait til the US government starts making you guys slaves and killing you all, I might actually have 3 slaves and get them to work in shifts.
So we agree then! But I think you missed my point that not everybody shares your understanding of considering an idea a few levels down the hole. Just picture Chris Matthews sitting there incredulously blabbering "Lower taxes!?!? Guys, how can THAT create jobs???" Fucking moron.
Chris Matthews I love the guy. He's so entertaining. I don't take him seriously. I watch him because he's a clown. You don't think he believes what he says do you?
I don't know Cusp. It is hard to say - he obviously is told to follow stories by msnbc and he preaches to the choir, as they say. But he also said crazy things like "obama sends a shiver up my leg" LOL. Who says that if you don't really like the guy and his policies? I think - and this will probably result in sharp intakes of breath and/or blood pressure rising among members here - that Glenn Beck is somebody who actually believes what he says. I'm not saying he is right or agreeing with him but I'm pretty sure he isn't bullshitting, at least in his opinion. I'm not sure that Hannity and Chris Matthews can claim that.
Beck does firmly believe in what he says, although he's a bit misguided.Hannity and Mathews as well. I admire their passion but I am amazed at the narrowness of their points of view and that they can't see wisdom from others thoughts.
I will honest here, I didn't read the entire thread (I don't have time right now). However, the US attempting to be a catalyst for WWIII is extremely unlikely. Possible, sure. There are a lot of possibilities (it is possible the sun stops shining tomorrow and the human population dies within hours from intense cold; that isn't very likely though). Why do I say WWIII is not likely? Think of the economic interdependence the entire world has right now. Greece is struggling mightily; Ireland is struggling; Spain is looking like they are going to collapse soon; US is looking worse and worse; and it is all interelated. WWIII would cause so much global economic stuggles that each country would likely collapse leading to a relative resurrection of the "Dark Ages" just like the Roman empire experience after Charlagmagne.
With technological advancement comes increasing global interdependence between each country. Technology is advancing faster than most people can even imagine (Most recent medical advancement is a heart that doesn't "beat" but it "pumps" blood; we can also physically see a memory be transferred from working memory into long term memory and watch the polypeptides coalesce. This heart is far superior to any other artificial heart--or even biological heart). There will come a time when a global economy is necessary. It scares me. It truly does. However, it is going to happen; it has to happen.
The main positive outcome I can see by increasing global interdependence the idea that diplomatic relations will also increase. Think about it. If the entire globe was dependent upon one another then diplomacy is the only option for success. War would lead to the exact opposite effect: complete collapse. That is why it scare the heck out me. Another example, China owns roughly 1/5 of the USA debt. Meaning, China is extremely dependent upon us and we are extremely dependent on China. If China were to completely leave USA in the dust and no longer hold that debt, both countries would immediately collapse; our currency would be worth nothing and China would be worth nothing as well.
Is it still possible that WWIII happens? Sure, it is possible, but I do not find it very likely. Also, our government officials are a bunch of crooks. Look at Congress's retirement plan and tell me what you think--they have it made and the only way to change it is, get this, an act of Congress. Sounds good for them.
With technological advancement comes increasing global interdependence between each country. Technology is advancing faster than most people can even imagine (Most recent medical advancement is a heart that doesn't "beat" but it "pumps" blood; we can also physically see a memory be transferred from working memory into long term memory and watch the polypeptides coalesce. This heart is far superior to any other artificial heart--or even biological heart). There will come a time when a global economy is necessary. It scares me. It truly does. However, it is going to happen; it has to happen.
The main positive outcome I can see by increasing global interdependence the idea that diplomatic relations will also increase. Think about it. If the entire globe was dependent upon one another then diplomacy is the only option for success. War would lead to the exact opposite effect: complete collapse. That is why it scare the heck out me. Another example, China owns roughly 1/5 of the USA debt. Meaning, China is extremely dependent upon us and we are extremely dependent on China. If China were to completely leave USA in the dust and no longer hold that debt, both countries would immediately collapse; our currency would be worth nothing and China would be worth nothing as well.
Is it still possible that WWIII happens? Sure, it is possible, but I do not find it very likely. Also, our government officials are a bunch of crooks. Look at Congress's retirement plan and tell me what you think--they have it made and the only way to change it is, get this, an act of Congress. Sounds good for them.
War helps economies. I've heard that all my life.I don't know if this is what the world id thinking or not. But war supposedly helps the economy.
Cusp, it is obvious that you lean liberal, democrat, progressive. Those tend to be idealists.
Cusp, it is obvious that you lean liberal, democrat, progressive. Those tend to be idealists.
With all due respect, I think you actually are completely backwards on this. A global war leads to economic surges because a) it lowers unemployment by sending all men off to war, many of which never come back to "take" jobs away. b) industry booms as factories are required to churn out weapons, ships, planes, weapons, tanks, etc.
It is also a way for us to maliciously relieve our debt. Imagine world war with China as our enemy...think all that debt we owe them is going to be honored? Fuck no America will tell them to shove the debt up their ass since it would make no sense to pay our enemy owed money. Furthermore, if we owe money to our allies who are about to be invaded by an enemy country, we will kindly "negotiate" a deal in which they forgive all our debt in exchange for military assistance.
Hey who are you calling liberal? I didn't say anything bad about you did I ? ( you think I'm liberal? it's way to early to start drinking but hey it's 5 o'clock somewhere)
Good thinking.Btw it seems that nobody mentioned the microchip agenda.It is already being done on pets etc,it's slowly creeping so that humans can except that with ease.If that ever happens then it's all over,orvellian state 101.They own you with a single push of a button,they can kill you with a single push of a button.Another thing that goes with this is gmo food,most people already know how deadly gmo is and leads to 65 worst diseases.Either you grow your own food or look closely for gmo.Gmo is not something you want to play with,trust me!!!
But the next series of wars that the U.S. becomes involved in will not be helping the Nascar crowd out there. Nascar guys will fight the wars, and the Halliburton guys will profit from them.
There will be no 'trickle-down' of the profits either. Nor will there be increased U.S employment as someone here mentioned (well, once the average U.S. wage becomes the same as the average wage in India then yes, employment will increase).
People, just look at history. Follow the money. Who profited from Iraq? Who profited from the financial crisis? Why is there a massive flow of money from the middle-class to the upper class? It's really easy to predict the future once you have identified the basics.
I moved out of the U.S. ten years ago. And I see more and more Americans coming here all the time. These aren't signs to ignore if you value your children's futures.
.
Sorry, but you are just factually wrong when you say there will not be increased U.S. employment in the event of world war. I think we are talking about two different issues - you're mostly talking about Big Dick Cheney and the way we literally destroyed Iraq and then rebuilt it with his company. Very convenient for Dick. This was not world war. In the event of actual world war, jobs will be created.
Quite right.
I wasn't thinking about a World War as that's simply not a possible scenario in the near future. The wars that the US will engage in will all be variants of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Those are the ones that are both profitable to the military industrial complex and yet at the same time not destabilizing to the current world order.
.
It's all good. I am not looking for anyone to agree with me. I would enjoy to hear your expanded reasoning behind "A global war [leading] to economic surges." I mean, it improves unemployment by sending people out to war. But, war leads to reduction in government spending elsewhere, then ruining terrain, infrastructure, and then having to rebuild those things in the future (which all costs a lot of money). You then continue by saying "industry booms as factories are required to churn out [various war machines and ammo]. Okay, so the idea is that we spend more on military spending means we see a spike in overall economy? False, there will not be a *net growth* in overall economy from war *alone. If you want to cite post-WWII as an example, keep in mind that there was a serious recession in 1957 because of all that good money WWII brought the USA.
Here is a hypothetical experience for you, Mark wants to purchase a new pair of shoes, jeans, and a nice shirt. However, Mark gets his paycheck after the government increased taxes to pay for all of those new soldiers and he cannot support his local retail stores this time around. Inflation now causes Mark to spend 45% of his paycheck on food each month (right now the national average is 33%).
His friend, Amy, was planning to go to graduate school after her senior year, but her adviser warned her that because of the war there is less government money for education and schools have either reduced the number of government assistantship offers or completely stopped offering scholarships. The reduction in scholarships has led to an increase in tuition and fees as well as ticket prices for athletic events, parking, room and board, among other things. Amy now has to get another school loan in order to pay for her senior year of college as the government funding has cut into all aspects of education (this is true as of right now--we increased spending on military and reduced spending on education). Amy's friend Bill is about to finish his Phd in Neuroscience and he is advised to look into a post-doc rather than apply for a teaching/research position because colleges and universities don't have the money to bring on new faculty; instead they have had to cut jobs which has led to several individuals with Phds jobless which will also make it more difficult for new Phds to find a job with a flooded market of experienced Phds.
"Mom and Pops" store is struggling to stay afloat while "Big War Machine Outlet" is getting government subsidies to fund their new facility for all of those fantastic new workers that will stand in the assembly line.
Ted is finding it tough to just get by with his current job so he gets another job working at "Fancy New Killing Equipment." He doesn't have time to enjoy life as much as he did before the war, however he can now afford to live so that gets him by. He is struggling with diabetes and he cannot afford to pay for prescriptions anymore. He stopped going to the doctor because the co-pay was too expensive on his medical "insurance."
Hurricane "No Bueno" hits Miami and government aid is needed. The government announces that they do not have the ability to send adequate support to Florida because of the global war. In the winter, a huge snow storm wipes out electricity in many parts of North Dakota and Minnesota and the States don't have enough money to clear the streets effectively which leads to an increase in automotive causality rates. Crime rates are increasing in all areas of the USA as individuals are unable to pay for their necessities and the government cut back on police payroll to fund the war so there are fewer police officers on the streets. In the spring the snow melts leading to the flooding of the Missouri River which floods the corn and wheat crops in Nebraska and Iowa causing yet another surge in the price of food.
The Nuclear Power Plant north of Omaha, NE is now at a level 4 because of the flooding and the fear of a nuclear explosion is dramatically increasing (FYI, the nuclear power plant north of Omaha is at a threat level four today). However, the War has bled the country for so long that the USA can no longer support their own States with the funding that they need. But, that reduction in unemployment helped.
Also, China and the USA would not go to war unless one, or both, were interested in completely obliterating the Earth. China is the biggest lender in the world while the US has the biggest debt in the world. If the US suddenly pulled out of China then both the US And China would almost immediately collapse (if China came asking for all that money back and completely stopped lending us money then we would both fall too--we need them to lend us money and they need us to take it; just like a bank, we need a bank to lend us money and the bank needs us to accept it). What you will see between the US and China are "proxy wars." Like what you see in the Middle East right now. US and China are THE two superpowers in the world. Nobody else is really close at all. Nobody can influence the world like the US and China. It would be down right crazy for either of them to go to war with one another; proxy wars, sure.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2008
- Messages
- 9,338
- Reaction score
- 313
- Points
- 0
They'll be happy; fewer hours than they're working now. By the way, the U.S. is not a democracy--never was. It is a republic run by the rich. With the Bush peaceful coup orchestrated with help from the supreme court, we learned exactly what our country is: an oligarchy.
I think you're on shaky ground, but I do agree with you. It is true that industrial output increases dramatically during global wars, which puts more money into the middle class. A net positive outcome. But you're right, eventually the money borrowed to fund the industrial surge must be paid back at a later date, possibly causing recession.
This is an important fact, for now. Currently the Chinese leadership is composed of members from the technical classes (engineers, etc) who lead the country, as you would expect, quite conservatively. They will NOT go to war with the U.S. However, there will come a day when that leadership will succumb to the power-hungry, who may be more nationalistic, more aggressive. Already many in China see it's rise as simply a return to where China should be (historically, up until the European industrial revolution, China had been the single largest economy in the world for many centuries). The future leaders of China may decide, at some point, that putting the U.S. in it's place will be the best course of action.
.
