Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is why we keep getting into senseless wars because people like yourself refuses to believe in the greed and wickness of our governmental leaders and just go through life like it does not happen
Some people go to great lengths to make themselves look foolish:
The fact that war bonds aren't sold as an inflation-fighting measure doesn't mean that aren't just that. What, you think the US would have had fewer resources in WWII if not for war bonds? It's a silly notion.
The fact that war bonds aren't sold as an inflation-fighting measure doesn't mean that aren't just that. What, you think the US would have had fewer resources in WWII if not for war bonds? It's a silly notion.
Ummmm.....Canada financed 50% of WWII (which they were in twice as long as the USA) with war bonds.
The definition I quoted wasn't a sales gimmick, it was THE definition of war bonds.
I notice of course that you didn't choose to rebut my actual POST, but only one term in that post.
The post said that nations lose money on wars. Can you name a war that the USA was involved in where they saved-up money to finance it? How about a war the USA made money on?
That was my point that you chose to ignore and instead look foolish trying to discredit through picking out one term used in it.
Ummmm.....Canada financed 50% of WWII (which they were in twice as long as the USA) with war bonds.
Silly old me - I thought that by referring to "the nation" that you meant the US. Clearly you meant Canada.
Quote:
The post said that nations lose money on wars. Can you name a war that the USA was involved in where they saved-up money to finance it? How about a war the USA made money on?
I don't think simetime meant that the US as a nation would make money on the war. That doesn't mean that there aren't people making money hand over fist on the Iraq war. War has always been a great way to move public money into private pockets.
Have you ever heard of the Banana Wars, for instance? Little dirty wars fought to make sure that US interests in the Caribbean fruit plantations didn't get threatened by silly natives who felt that fruit grown in their country should somehow belong to them.
Quote:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Then the bottom line is....do you seriously think the USA votes for wars to make some people who were already wealthy moreso?
There is ample historical precedence. Did you google "Banana Wars"? They weren't fought for reasons of strategic fruit supply.
As for Iraq, specifically, I doubt the administration foresaw the conflagration they triggered. This was supposed to be Desert W. Storm, a quick dash in and and out, a friendly regime (remember Chalabi?) installed, some nice photo-ops and GWB's place in history secured. And you can bet that the right companies, owned by the right people, were lined up to get on the gravy train.
As it happened, because GWB's administration just wasn't very good at vetting their sources (you agree with that, right? - after all you've spent 25 pages arguing that they simply listened to people who were wrong), it wasn't easy at all.
The occupation was FUBARed early on - disarming the Army, great move - Chalabi was massively unpopular and later turned out to be on Iran's payroll, the Shia Muslims had a ton of scores to settle (and they did) and as Iraq went from "shiny victory" to "why are we there, again?", smart people in government service decided that wasn't a project they wanted on their resume. So we had to throw money at the problem by the fistful.
I don't think it was in the forefront of the administration's collective mind - but the fact remains, the Iraq war was immensely profitable for a bunch of US companies.
I don't think it was in the forefront of the administration's collective mind - but the fact remains, the Iraq war was immensely profitable for a bunch of US companies.
Entertaining.....delusional, but hilarious.
You actually avoided a direct answer....wonder why?
Posted with TapaTalk
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
