Obama launching World War 3 !!

[mistydawn Banned Find all posts View Profile Close mistydawn]

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.

[Closed039 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Closed039]

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 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.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

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)

[wind chill Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close wind chill]

Our childrens future and future generations does not look good at all they will know what it is to be a true slave with NO rights!

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!!!

[User235 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User235]

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.

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.

.

[Closed039 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Closed039]

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.

[User235 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User235]

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.

.

[ByggD Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close ByggD]

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.

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.

[Going411x7 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Going411x7]

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.

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.

[User235 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User235]

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.

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.

Also, China and the USA would not go to war unless one, or both, were interested in completely obliterating the Earth. ..... It would be down right crazy for either of them to go to war with one another; proxy wars, sure.

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.

.

[Going411x7 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Going411x7]

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.

.

I agree. Eisenhower warned us of this unholy alliance.

[ByggD Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close ByggD]

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.

Hey, bud. How's it going? I am not sure why I am on shaky ground. Could you explain please. I mean, in the event of a global war we are going to need ammunition that cannot be reused. That ammunition is only going to destroy things; at the very least destroy itself. After it is made and sold, it is worth nothing. The bomb maker doesn't benefit anyone else. Whereas, say, a car maker benefits lots of people (car insurance, fuel, oil, filters, lights, washer blades, tires, radios, speakers, more fuel, convenient stores, athletic events--bus rides--etc.). When a bomb finally does go off someone is going to need death insurance (widow), health insurance, and pension, luckily the good ole tax payer will be there to take the hit though. Also, all of those soldiers that we send off to war will need retraining when they get back which costs businesses lots of money; unless they are going to carry an M-16 for the new Military State formerly known as the USA. War does not lead to a economic "boom" by itself. Maybe it seems that way because the USA can't stay out of wars. Fact: the USA spends 2 Billion a week on Afghanistan alone, how is that going for the USA? The US could sure use that money at home right about now.


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.

.

I am too tired right now. Thanks for commenting on my post though. I hope I don't come off as angry in my posts. I am not angry and I enjoy these types of discussions. For now, I am going to bed. Thanks again for contributing to the conversation.

[mistydawn Banned Find all posts View Profile Close mistydawn]

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 don't deny one bit that many many people profited greatly from the Iraq war. The financial crisis was a bonus (litterally) for banks, lending companies etc. They f*uck up, fail, and we get the shaft.

PS. I was talking a world war.

[mistydawn Banned Find all posts View Profile Close mistydawn]

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.

[User235 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User235]

I don't deny one bit that many many people profited greatly from the Iraq war. The financial crisis was a bonus (litterally) for banks, lending companies etc. They f*uck up, fail, and we get the shaft.

PS. I was talking a world war.

You are right, war can help economies, but eventually all that spent hardware has to be paid for, with our tax dollars. And those dollars now can't be used for infrastructure, education nor technology - all things that can grow an economy. However, world wars can change America's place in the world, which greatly benefited us after WW2. So you have a point about wars helping economies.

I just think that any war will probably not help the middle class, but instead will greatly enrich corporations and their shareholders. We don't live in a 1950's America anymore. The wealthy take a much, much larger share of the GDP then they used to.