Thread: Will America start WW lll ??

Originally Posted by min0 lee

While we are on the subject, I may have forgotten or they may be a simple reason for this....why didn't we drop it on the Germans.
Who fell first? Japan or Germany?

Weren't we still selling war supplies to Germany at that time?

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Yeah, I guess throwing babies in the air and catching them on a bayonette versus nuking babies... hmm... I don't see a difference...

They weren't ready yet.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

They had 0 good reasons to drop that bomb....if it was such a good reason then why didnt we do it in Iraq or Nam or Koria ect????

The simple fact is it was dropped to show the world who the new king was.....and that if you messed with us we would incenirate 100,000's of your women and children......

Don't let the fact that we were at the end of a long war against two very powerful opponents get in the way of your reasoning.

That's a good point. If it's so important to save our soldiers lives (which it doesnt seem to be under the current president ) Then why do we even send ground troops? Why don't we just nuke countries??

Vietnam!??

Originally Posted by DOMS

Don't let the fact that we were at the end of a long war against two very powerful opponents get in the way of your reasoning.

Both were decimated by that point.....no need to nuke them when they were on their knees.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Both were decimated by that point.....no need to nuke them when they were on their knees.

Japan was down but not out and we weren't doing so good either.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

That's a good point. If it's so important to save our soldiers lives (which it doesnt seem to be under the current president ) Then why do we even send ground troops? Why don't we just nuke countries??

Vietnam!??

There are many who would have wanted that (me included), but the cost of civilian lives would be much higher.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Japan was down but not out and we weren't doing so good either.

Lets say in a fight you had a broken hand, you had been knocked down 2-3 times and clearly getting your ass kicked......my second wind was comming because my other fight was over and I could focus everything on you......so is it now the time I should kick you in the balls??? Why fight dirty at the end of a fight you have clearly won......only some bitch in compton would do something like that

Originally Posted by DOMS

There are many who would have wanted that (me included), but the cost of civilian lives would be much higher.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Wrong. It's always "Better them, than us."

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

What I said is consistant. I'd rather bomb them into nothing than suffer a single fatality on our side.

I have heard it is more important not to lose a single american life.

If this is true, than a million civilian deaths shouldn't matter in another country.


If that's not true, then I need a ratio.


1 american = 100 foreign civilians, or

1 american = 100,000 foreign civilians.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What I said is consistant. I'd rather bomb them into nothing than suffer a single fatality on our side.

Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.

This is most certainly true. So, it is better to kill the enemy wholesale that to have a single US soldier injured!

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I have heard it is more important not to lose a single american life.

If this is true, than a million civilian deaths shouldn't matter in another country.


If that's not true, then I need a ratio.


1 american = 100 foreign civilians, or

1 american = 100,000 foreign civilians.

You posts are getting better and better!

1 american > 100,000 foreigners from an enemy country

Originally Posted by DOMS

This is most certainly true. So, it is better to kill the enemy wholesale that to have a single US soldier injured!

Actually it is better not to put American soilders in harms way unless totlay necessary...and also better to treat them right.....sadly something that will never happen here.

Intermission:

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/1562.html

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Actually it is better not to put American soilders in harms way unless totlay necessary...and also better to treat them right.....sadly something that will never happen here.

I agree completely. If a country presents a great enough threat to go to war with, we should be willing to destroy them. If we aren't willing to destroy them, then the threat obviously isn't that great.

While I personally strongly favor using American air power over ground troops, in the Vietnam conflict and the Iraq conflict, our objective was not to destroy the enemy. Vietnam was a pawn in a chess game between the commies and the United States. Iraq we were trying to make sure WMDs would not fall into terrorist hands.

That isn't to say I agree with the objectives of either of those conflicts. Like I said, we should stay the hell out of conflict unless we are willing to decimate our enemy, which is what it takes to win. Our leaders during WWII knew this, sadly, we don't have such leaders today.

Regarding Japan, an interesting quote I found after the attack on Pearl Harbor:

"Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell!"
Admiral Halsey - December 1941

This is the type of resolve we lack today. People have sympathy for those who wish to destroy us, not indignation.

Originally Posted by brogers

"Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell!"
Admiral Halsey - December 1941

Originally Posted by DOMS

You posts are getting better and better!

1 american > 100,000 foreigners from an enemy country

Thanks.


Ok, so 1 = 100k. Thats all I wanted to know.

“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.”

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Take that energy and go fight for the American soilders rights to be treated with the best possible medical care.......ever walk around a VA hospital????? You will never see a more crappy medical phacility in this counrty than one of those......this Gov. conldn't give a shit about the men and women who fight for this country.

Hey now, just because they prescribe Motrin to us for every ailment known to man doesn't mean the facility is crap.

the aliens will stop WW3

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

the aliens will stop WW3

The adromedan's might, but I doubt the grey's or draconians will:



http://www.exopolitics.org/collier-dsg1.pdf

Originally Posted by Super Hulk

the aliens will stop WW3

No they won't they will start it, let us kill each other off and then use Earth as a vacation spot.

Counting real cost of Bush’s war in Iraq
Joseph E. Stiglitz

THE most important things in life — like life itself — are priceless. But that does not mean that issues involving the preservation of life (or a way of life), such as defence, should not be subjected to cool, hard economic analysis. Shortly before the current Iraq war, when Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs of the war might range between $100bn and $200bn, other officials quickly demurred. For example, office of management and budget director Mitch Daniels put the number at $60bn.

It now appears that Lindsey’s numbers were a gross underestimate.


Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war’s costs, just as it had about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and connection with al-Qaeda, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue. Even we, as opponents of the war, were staggered by what we found, with conservative to moderate estimates ranging from slightly less than a trillion dollars to more than $2-trillion.


Our analysis starts with the $500bn that the Congressional Budget Office openly talks about, which is still 10 times higher than what the administration said the war would cost. Its estimate falls so far short because the reported numbers do not even include the full budgetary costs to the government. And the budgetary costs are but a fraction of the costs to the economy as a whole.


For example, the Bush administration has been doing everything it can to hide the huge number of returning veterans who are severely wounded — 16000 so far, including roughly 20% with serious brain and head injuries.

So it is no surprise that its figure of $500bn ignores the lifetime disability and health-care costs that the government will have to pay for years to come.


Nor does the administration want to face up to the military’s recruiting and retention problems.

The result is large re-enlistment bonuses, improved benefits, and higher recruiting costs — up 20% just from 2003 to last year.

Moreover, the war is extremely wearing on equipment, some of which will have to be replaced.


These budgetary costs (exclusive of interest) amount to $652bn in our conservative estimate and $799bn in our moderate estimate. Arguably, since the government has not reined in other expenditures or increased taxes, the expenditures have been debt financed, and the interest costs on this debt add another $98bn (conservative) to $385bn (moderate) to the budgetary costs.


Of course, the brunt of the costs of injury and death is borne by soldiers and their families. But the military pays disability benefits that are markedly lower than the value of lost earnings. Similarly, payments for those who are killed amount to only $500000, which is far less than standard estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death, which is sometimes referred to as the statistical value of a life ($6,1m to $6,5m).


But the costs do not stop there. The Bush administration once claimed the Iraq war would be good for the economy, with one spokesman even suggesting it was the best way to ensure low oil prices. As in so many other ways, things have turned out differently: the oil groups are the big winners, while the American and global economies are losers.


At the same time, money spent on the war could have been spent elsewhere. We estimate that if a proportion of that money had been allocated to domestic investment in roads, schools, and research, the American economy would have been stimulated more in the short run, and its growth would have been enhanced in the long run.


There are a number of other costs, some potentially quite large, although quantifying them is problematic. For instance, Americans pay some $300bn annually for the “option value” of military preparedness — being able to fight wherever needed. That Americans are willing to pay this suggests that the option value exceeds the costs. But there is little doubt that the option value has been greatly impaired and will likely remain so for several years.


In short, even our “moderate” estimate may significantly underestimate the cost of America’s involvement in Iraq. And our estimate does not include any of the costs implied by the enormous loss of life and property in Iraq itself.


We do not attempt to explain whether the American people were deliberately misled by the Bush administration regarding the war’s costs, or whether the administration’s gross underestimate should be attributed to incompetence, as it vehemently argues is true in the case of weapons of mass destruction. Nor do we attempt to assess whether there were more cost-effective ways of waging the war. Recent evidence that deaths and injuries would have been greatly reduced had better body armour been provided to troops suggests how short-run frugality can lead to long-run costs.

Certainly, when a war’s timing is a matter of choice, as it was in this case, inadequate preparation is even less justifiable. But such considerations appear to be beyond the Bush administration’s reckoning. Elaborate cost-benefit analyses of big projects have been standard practice in the defence department and elsewhere in government for almost a half-century.

The Iraq war was an immense “project,” yet it now appears that the analysis of its benefits was greatly flawed and that of its costs virtually absent. One cannot help but wonder: were there alternative ways of spending a fraction of the war’s $1-trillion- $2-trillion in costs that would have better strengthened security, boosted prosperity and promoted democracy?


‖Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of Economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Clinton and chief economist and senior vice-president at the World Bank.

http://www.businessday.co.za/article...?ID=BD4A159957

the war is good for the economy...at least for my family.


I'm only wish we could lock down Iraqi oil for our use...the chances of that happening in the next 5 years is slim though. They'd blow up the new facilities before we finished construction.

I'd like to think of Iraq as our future base for our military for another invasion in the next 10 years...Iran.

Strategically, take look at a map of Iran. We surround it almost 360 degrees with allies or bought airspace: Afghan, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, and the persian gulf waters. I'm sure Turkey would even let us in their air space too for the right price. I believe it will happen sooner if McCain get elected in 2008...but it won't matter whose in officce in the long run. We'll be forced into it.

Do you think its coincidence that we surround Iran?

Originally Posted by lnvanry

the war is good for the economy...at least for my family.


I'm only wish we could lock down Iraqi oil for our use...the chances of that happening in the next 5 years is slim though. They'd blow up the new facilities before we finished construction.

I'd like to think of Iraq as our future base for our military for another invasion in the next 10 years...Iran.

Strategically, take look at a map of Iran. We surround it almost 360 degrees with allies or bought airspace: Afghan, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, and the persian gulf waters. I'm sure Turkey would even let us in their air space too for the right price. I believe it will happen sooner if McCain get elected in 2008...but it won't matter whose in officce in the long run. We'll be forced into it.

Do you think its coincidence that we surround Iran?

So... with that in mind... you still believe we invaded because of a threat?

Everything you just stated are the logical reasons for invasion.......................................... ...