Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster?

[truth on hold]

 

 

Calling me partisan is funny. But what is the solution then?

The errors in your post speak volumes.

[Deranged Rhino]

The errors in your post speak volumes.

 

The fact you won't answer, speaks even louder.

[DC Tom]

The fact you won't answer, speaks even louder.

 

AIPAC won't let him, I'm sure.

[Deranged Rhino]

AIPAC won't let him, I'm sure.

 

 

This is another area JTSP and I probably agree more than he realizes, or would if he actually made a coherent point. So far, he hasn't.

 

There absolutely is more profit in war than peace, and there are powerful interests in this country that have a lot riding on fanning the flames of perpetual war. The trick now is to do so without letting those flames turn into a raging inferno and destroying profit margins, a trick that I'm not certain is possible. It's an issue that is tough to discuss without descending into either conspiracy theory madness or the kind of hopelessness that makes you want to throw up your hands. Still, I'd love to hear JTSP's thoughts on how to remedy that ugly fact of American foreign policy.

[truth on hold]

 

 

The fact you won't answer, speaks even louder.

What? An error-filled post? Lol try to changing the subject much after making a fool of yourself? Lol

[Deranged Rhino]

What? An error-filled post? Lol try to changing the subject much after making a fool of yourself? Lol

 

It takes a lot of balls to come on here and accuse me of an error filled post and changing the subject when:

 

1. I didn't change the subject, rather asked you to expound upon your point and explain what you feel the best solutions are.

 

2. Your post includes the sentence: "try to changing the subject matter after making a fool of yourself?"

[DC Tom]

 

This is another area JTSP and I probably agree more than he realizes, or would if he actually made a coherent point. So far, he hasn't.

 

And people think "you're an idiot" means I disagree with them. No, it means you couldn't find your ass with both hands. I may agree with you...but if you don't make sense, you're an idiot. JtSP is the poster boy for that principle.

 

There absolutely is more profit in war than peace, and there are powerful interests in this country that have a lot riding on fanning the flames of perpetual war. The trick now is to do so without letting those flames turn into a raging inferno and destroying profit margins, a trick that I'm not certain is possible. It's an issue that is tough to discuss without descending into either conspiracy theory madness or the kind of hopelessness that makes you want to throw up your hands. Still, I'd love to hear JTSP's thoughts on how to remedy that ugly fact of American foreign policy.

 

Historically, peace is more profitable than war, unless you're the arms dealer (or a mercenary). Pick almost any war you'd like, back to the beginning of history, and you'll find that most combatants, and virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose. The American experiences with World Wars 1 and 2 are extraordinarily unique exceptions (if they're exceptions at all - one could argue that the profit came not from the war but from being the only industrial country not devastated by it).

 

It just seems to be profitable, because it costs so damn much, so lots of money changes hands.

[truth on hold]

And people think "you're an idiot" means I disagree with them. No, it means you couldn't find your ass with both hands. I may agree with you...but if you don't make sense, you're an idiot. JtSP is the poster boy for that principle.

 

 

 

Historically, peace is more profitable than war, unless you're the arms dealer (or a mercenary). Pick almost any war you'd like, back to the beginning of history, and you'll find that most combatants, and virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose. The American experiences with World Wars 1 and 2 are extraordinarily unique exceptions (if they're exceptions at all - one could argue that the profit came not from the war but from being the only industrial country not devastated by it).

 

It just seems to be profitable, because it costs so damn much, so lots of money changes hands.

lol and now the king of error-filled posts has arrived.

 

Germany made out much better post-WWII than pre

 

[Alaska Darin]

lol and now the king of error-filled posts has arrived.

 

Germany made out much better post-WWII than pre

 

You know there was more than one Germany post-1945, right?

[Deranged Rhino]

Historically, peace is more profitable than war, unless you're the arms dealer (or a mercenary). Pick almost any war you'd like, back to the beginning of history, and you'll find that most combatants, and virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose. The American experiences with World Wars 1 and 2 are extraordinarily unique exceptions (if they're exceptions at all - one could argue that the profit came not from the war but from being the only industrial country not devastated by it).

 

It just seems to be profitable, because it costs so damn much, so lots of money changes hands.

 

It's a good point(s), and one of the things that makes the discussion an interesting one.

 

But isn't that only true if you're talking about the profitability of nation states? (I'm asking because I don't know.) What happens when you look at the profit margins of the Raytheons, Lockheeds, et. al of history instead? The companies responsible for selling the arms and munitions are the ones that make up the "military industrial complex", not the nation states themselves. The nation states are just their shells. Those companies bottom lines are built around the fact their products are, by and large, one use only kinda items, aren't they?

 

How much influence they have on policy though... that's the real question.

 

lol and now the king of error-filled posts has arrived.

 

Germany made out much better post-WWII than pre

 

 

It's almost as if you are willfully ignorant of historical context.

[FireChan]

lol and now the king of error-filled posts has arrived.

 

Germany made out much better post-WWII than pre

 

 

Does anyone else see a sharp decline directly after the end of WWII?

 

Does anyone else see the sharp declines directly after the end of WWI?

 

And people think "you're an idiot" means I disagree with them. No, it means you couldn't find your ass with both hands. I may agree with you...but if you don't make sense, you're an idiot. JtSP is the poster boy for that principle.

 

 

 

Historically, peace is more profitable than war, unless you're the arms dealer (or a mercenary). Pick almost any war you'd like, back to the beginning of history, and you'll find that most combatants, and virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose. The American experiences with World Wars 1 and 2 are extraordinarily unique exceptions (if they're exceptions at all - one could argue that the profit came not from the war but from being the only industrial country not devastated by it).

 

It just seems to be profitable, because it costs so damn much, so lots of money changes hands.

 

It terms of national profit, I subscribe to the belief this is the major reason we were profitable after the Wars. No factories to rebuild, barely any losses to the workforce etc. A total Blue Ocean for our country.

Edited September 24, 2014 by FireChan

[DC Tom]

It's almost as if you are willfully ignorant of historical context.

 

But of course he's right. Hitler's plan in 1939 was to die, have Germany split up, then have billions of dollars funneled into the western half of the country under the Marshall plan to spur economic growth in 1960. It's all right there in the chart.

[truth on hold]

But of course he's right. Hitler's plan in 1939 was to die, have Germany split up, then have billions of dollars funneled into the western half of the country under the Marshall plan to spur economic growth in 1960. It's all right there in the chart.

DC TOM "virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose"

 

clearly refuted by the chart. Same for Japan whose post war period was described as an "economic miracle".

 

"The Japanese post-war economic miracle is the name given to the historical phenomenon of Japan's record period of economic growth between post-World War II era to the end of Cold War. During the economic boom, Japan was catapulted into the world's second largest economy (after the United States) by the 1980s"

 

http://en.wikipedia....conomic_miracle

 

Good grief what a pair of dopes, just digging the hole deeper. All this because Greggo didn't simply admit he messed up with post #218.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[DC Tom]

DC TOM "virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose"

 

clearly refuted by the chart. Same for Japan whose post war period was described as an "economic miracle".

 

"The Japanese post-war economic miracle is the name given to the historical phenomenon of Japan's record period of economic growth between post-World War II era to the end of Cold War. During the economic boom, Japan was catapulted into the world's second largest economy (after the United States) by the 1980s"

 

http://en.wikipedia....conomic_miracle

 

Good grief what a pair of dopes, just digging the hole deeper. All this because Greggo didn't simply admit he messed up with post #218.

 

You're a !@#$ing idiot. Germany and Japan gained no economic benefit from getting the **** kicked out of them in wars they started. They gained an economic benefit a decade later from being allied with the most powerful economy on the planet.

 

Are you actually arguing that German and Japan foresaw the Cold War policies that benefited them twenty years in advance of the Cold War?

[FireChan]

DC TOM "virtually all who initiate, don't make out economically, win or lose"

 

clearly refuted by the chart. Same for Japan whose post war period was described as an "economic miracle".

 

"The Japanese post-war economic miracle is the name given to the historical phenomenon of Japan's record period of economic growth between post-World War II era to the end of Cold War. During the economic boom, Japan was catapulted into the world's second largest economy (after the United States) by the 1980s"

 

http://en.wikipedia....conomic_miracle

 

Good grief what a pair of dopes, just digging the hole deeper. All this because Greggo didn't simply admit he messed up with post #218.

 

We experienced a recession in the 1980's. Isn't that also "post-war?" What about 08? Post-WWII for sure.

Edited September 24, 2014 by FireChan

[Deranged Rhino]

Good grief what a pair of dopes, just digging the hole deeper. All this because Greggo didn't simply admit he messed up with post #218.

 

Historical inaccuracies and fantasies aside, whatever I messed up in 218 -- which I'm still not certain about -- was a small part of a larger question, namely what do you propose to do about it? I ask not to pick, but to spark a conversation about what I actually consider a valid point (of course, it was originally raised by Blz, not you, giving it a much better chance of being valid in the first place -- but I kid).

 

So, our comical pissing match aside (still think it's funny you're coming after me when I'm the only one trying to actually engage you in an honest discussion, but I'm more than willing to over look that), I'll ask it again. If you're right that certain parties profit from keeping the state in perpetual -- and contained -- war, and if politicians are merely empty suits marching to the beat of whoever feeds the meter (the present commander in chief is forgiven from this equation in your argument -- another point I'm willing to overlook even if I completely disagree with it), what's the solution in your mind? How do you fix that?

 

I ask because I'm sincerely interested in your answer, not because I'm trying to play PPP Gotcha.

[DC Tom]

We experienced a recession in the 1980's. Isn't that also "post-war?" What about 08? Post-WWII for sure.

 

I may as well argue that Greece is still suffering from the economic down-turn of the Peloponnesian War. Sure, it was 2500 years ago...but we're still post-war, aren't we?

[FireChan]

Historical inaccuracies and fantasies aside, whatever I messed up in 218 -- which I'm still not certain about -- was a small part of a larger question, namely what do you propose to do about it? I ask not to pick, but to spark a conversation about what I actually consider a valid point (of course, it was originally raised by Blz, not you, giving it a much better chance of being valid in the first place -- but I kid).

 

So, our comical pissing match aside (still think it's funny you're coming after me when I'm the only one trying to actually engage you in an honest discussion, but I'm more than willing to over look that), I'll ask it again. If you're right that certain parties profit from keeping the state in perpetual -- and contained -- war, and if politicians are merely empty suits marching to the beat of whoever feeds the meter (the present commander in chief is forgiven from this equation in your argument -- another point I'm willing to overlook even if I completely disagree with it), what's the solution in your mind? How do you fix that?

 

I ask because I'm sincerely interested in your answer, not because I'm trying to play PPP Gotcha.

 

That's what makes you soft.

[GG]

Oh my. What an unmitigated moron.

[Deranged Rhino]

That's what makes you soft.

 

It's so true. I had a coach once complain to my father that I'm not mean enough to play at the next level.

 

 

I wanted to be mad at the guy, but I couldn't bring myself to do it.