Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dogbone, Feb 25, 2007.
Seriously, in a country in a situation like Iran's, food embargoes tend to be the most brutal and ineffective moves... look at North Korea. Starving people in the countryside is hardly a good way of making the world a better place.
Ditto. The only people who suffer are the poor civilians. The filthy rich leaders can still get their food from other sources.
At least we can agree that Abdiminijad is filthy looking.
I concur, it's the civilians who suffer. Ineffective policy.
True and these so dictator like rulers are allways more interested in weapons then say Food. Just Look at North Korea, they would let their nation starve as long as they can have their Nuclear weapon and they have done just this.
True story. How many homeless Americans could be taken off the streets, if we did not have to support a bloated military budget?
(With apologies to The Simpsons)
No kidding imagine what those Billions could do for Education ,Healthcare and Exploring space, Instead we get weapons that can kill other humans. Man is one big mess.
"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. This is our twentieth century's claim to distinction and to progress."
- General Omar Bradley, November 10, 1948
Sad but true.
I find it ironic that the two most influential American military leaders, Eisenhower and Bradley, both came to hate the world they helped to build. President Eisenhower's 'farewell speech to the nation' was very pointed about the growth and unchecked power of what he described as the "Military Industrial Complex". His speech was a warning to all who would listen. Few have.
if I had to guess less than 0 the more than likely story is it would be adding to the number of homeless on the street because of the lack of military spending for jobs. both ones in the military (lots of soldiers) plus all the contracts that are spun off because of the military supporting jobs here.
Just look at history during war times. Unemployment rate drops which translate into less homeless people.
Hardly any. The military budget has shrunk from 57 percent of the budget in 1956 to only 19 percent in 2006 while social programs (including ssi) have grown from 21 to 59% during the same time.
If we spent that money to help create other jobs that would actually benefit people, then you could start getting more of the people who actually want to get off of the streets into jobs.
And that's the whole root of the problem, isn't it?
eisenhower had some sage words for sure
Tell that to North Korea.
practice what you preach, right?
relative numbers: yes, NK has the highest in percentage of GDP
absolute numbers: in 2002 it was 5.2 billions ... compared to the money spent by the US in the military industrial complex, it's miniscule... that much money wouldn't be enough money to fund the US forces for a week _before 2001_
in 2007 it might not even be enough for 4 days
you still can not get around the historical proof that I showed. Unemployment DROP during times of war. Guess what pulled the US out of the great Depression. WWII.
War is good for business and that is just a cold hard fact. Now yes it is a balancing act because you pull to much out of other places the Military side starts to fall as well and suffer but it still a cold hard fact taht war is good for business and during war times business did better and unemployment drop.
There is a only so much the government can do locally to make jobs. Thing that makes military spending so good is a lot of the stuff made for the military is expendable (ammunition, fuel) and a lot of equipment is destroyed or just wears out and has to be replaced. Mix that in with the drive for better technology.
During war times is when you see a lot of huge technological leaps.
As I said before war is good for business.
Now do not get me wrong I do not like war or think we should get involved in them. I just pointed out historical facts that are backing my statement.
Uhhhh, do you know what ended the GD? The end of the Great Depression. The economy had been slowly but surely emerging from the doldrums of a decade earlier. Stronger exports and more stable domestic consumption had stabilized economic activity. Hitler's ballooning economy had quite a bit to do with that. Whether we like it or not, US exports to Germany helped Hitler prepare for war.
What WWII did do, is give the economy one big jolt. Couple that with millions of men being deployed overseas and instant universal employment for those who remained, the US economy was in danger of going into overdrive. Price and wage controls kept the economy from overheating.
Wars are hugely inefficient ways to create jobs. Unless of course, you consider sending a significant portion of the workforce to their death to be an effective means of reducing unemployment......
To use one example, that of the US and the second World War doesn't make a universal rule.The second world war bankrupted every other country I can think of involved.
You should expand on this more because it sounds like you are attributing the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to the United States.
well i'd say in this case, it was a leader of the US. so, taking the time warp to present day, if someone in his position would tell that to north korea now, it would be laughable.
but from my own preaching, since i do not actually have a military of my own, i guess i could tell them... not sure they'd pay much attention to me.