U.S. Soldiers Savagely Killed Afghan Civilians, Kept Body Parts As Trophies

I've had this argument with you before and for some reason you can't, or won't, see the damage to world stability the invasion of Iraq has caused.

As far as Saddam trying to take over the world, he couldn't even beat Iran, shoot any of our fighter jets down or even slow down the invasion of his own country. His own elite forces turned tail and ran. Come on Oden, don't you think you're stretching reality just a bit.

If you call more instability, more terrorists and more terrorism, a world economy in shambles, thousands of dead on both sides a positive transformation.......

.

 

We are not talking about how it may or may not have affected the "world stability".

I wasn't stretching reality a bit, I was stretching it a lot.
I admited it was a flippant and non serious response...and I wasn't going to get away with it.
What more do you want?

I hope I'm not the type of person to make spurious connections like I did in my last post.

Mmm, this might be true.

Lets be fair, that had very little, almost zero to do with terrorism or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That had more to do with the banking and housing sectors combusting/collapsing.
Most economies are recovering, or will recover over the next 5 -10 years.
I accept shock terrorist attacks - such as 9/11 - can impact a countries economy.
I think world economic forecasts have said there would be just over 2% growth in 2002 and in 2010 it is little over or under 3%...so it is slightly better not worse, right?

I stopped equating the body count (or lack of) in a positive or negative way a long time ago.

Which war(s) do you think were honourable or worth fighting (take your pick).

.

 

I interpreted your statement to only apply to the Hitler thing, that was my bad. The blood left my brain for a short while.

.

 

It's ok. Most people would not admit that. So thanks.

 

The costs of the war and incidentals, like the private branch of the military, alone are staggering; much of it is outside of the budget. The cost of treating a Traumatic Brain Injury X tens of thousands along with treatment for thousands of other veterans with serious expensive medical care is another economic blow. The lost productivity is an expense that is difficult to determine, but again, staggering.

I could go on and on, but the point is, we went into that economic collapse already in dire straights, which weakened our ability to properly deal with the situation.

That might be a good if most of it wasn't concentrated in the very wealthy class. Us common folks aren't feeing the upturn like the rich are.

I would use the term justifiable. That would be any war fought in the defense of the nation, allied nation or a "helpless country" under attack, and only after all diplomatic channels have been exhausted.

.

 

The world economy and the economy of the USA are two issues, aren't they?
As far as I can see Gross debt as percentage of GDP is sky high around the world (reaching 100% in many countries, many not burdened by funding a war or two). The red line that economies should not cross is debatable, but all I have read is the effect of these eye watering debts is national and the world economies grow 0.5-1% lower, meaning capitalism is faultering.
*Bit of a cliche alert*The main aim of capitalism is constant growth, so while economies are growing - even by 1% - we'll be ok.

"The Rich" have personal investment - on the whole - so are bound to gain and are also going to lose too. "The Poor" generally do not have anything invested - others have something invested in them i.e debt obligations - so "The Poor" are the likely candidates to lose out. But remember I was talking about the worlds economy. Tbh, I'm not a big fan of trotting out the line "The poor will suffer the rich will gain"...it could well be true sometimes, but it can't be true all the time.

No e.gs?

 

Are you saying that the World's economy crashing at the same time as ours was a coincidence?

I can't see growth of any amount as being beneficial when it all goes to the top wealthiest in the world who reinvest in markets that do not create jobs. Tight now, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer while the middle class is sliding into the poorhouse.

Too idealistic for my taste

Maybe the World Wars, but I was born after WWII and history has been somewhat rewritten and I can't be sure of the nuances of negotiations prior to war. The perception I have says that they were likely justified.

And, probably the one that Clinton did that I can't spell.

At least during my lifetime the U.S. has not fought wars in defense of itself or others, we fight for stupid ideological reasons. I think Rwanda would have been a good one to fight.

.

 

No. It was an inevitability. It was a domino effect.
Thanks globalisation and the world economy.

There are many spheres of economic growth aren't there?
.
Like I went onto say: "The Rich" have personal investment - on the whole - so are bound to gain and are also going to lose too. "The Poor" generally do not have anything invested - others have something invested in them i.e debt obligations - so "The Poor" are the likely candidates to lose out.
I'm not quite sure why that is too idealistic for you.
It seems common sense.

I'm never quite sure what Americans mean when they say "middle class".
I have a feeling it means something very different than it does here.
I do think it is a lot more broad a term than it is used here.
So you could be working class here and middle class in America.
Given some of the definitions I have read, I would class the upper level of the so-called middle class as rich (relatively speaking).
It sometimes feels like the so-called middle class American does not want to economise.

Why?

Fair points. Fair enough.

 

I think you just answered your previous question:

Sure there are, but the wealthy have their tentacles in all of them. Since the 70s or so, corporate America has devised a myriad of methods of milking the middle class and the poor of their last dollar.

Maybe idealistic wasn't the best word, hogwash might be better. The factory owner invests money, but the workers invest time, energy, injury, and often their entire lives, they're the ones who make the business successful, money cannot operate a machine, sell products or make shipments.

I'm not sure I know any more either. The lines between classes have been blurred.

They don't think they should have to. Too many Americans are pretty damned arrogant and think we're a privileged nation. Even in today's economy our waste could probably feed several third world countries.

.