Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2019, 12:42 AM
 
776 posts, read 394,905 times
Reputation: 672

Advertisements


https://youtube.com/watch?v=-IW6PwJYcOc

Which one sounds like the war candidate to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2019, 01:11 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,118,083 times
Reputation: 5036
We should not have got involved in either world war, we should have developed the A bomb and all the other military tech just in case but we should not have engaged. It was not our fight and we were unaware of death camps at the time so we cant use that as an excuse. We goaded Japan into war by our posturing, war with Japan might have been enevitable since we were allied with the Phillipines but it would have taken alot longer.

BUT at least WW2 was a total war and everyone paid, there was rationing, etc.

The reason people hate republican wars is they are wars of convience against non nuclear powers that are paid for with debt spending that passes the spending pain onto their kids. They dont actually have to endure rationing or any other sort of steep quality of life changes in order to fight said war, especially not rich people.

The reason they dont engage with nuclear powers is because nuclear powers can reach out and touch the filthy riches estates and families, vaporizing them into dust. They dont just get to send financially disadvantaged people over seas to fight for oil or rare earths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2019, 01:15 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,118,083 times
Reputation: 5036
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Not only did the Germans bomb an american ammunitions factory, they planted military vessels off the US coast along the Atlantic and Gulf coast and attacked American ships as well as French and British ships with plenty of US citizens on them.

If you dont like the end result of war, fine, but please stop saying we had "no reason" to be in it. We absolutely did.

again, a history book would help you, but honestly, it seems your problem is the end result, not the act of going to war.
Hmm ... sounds like nonsense revisionist history. Maybe there was one U-boat that fired one round off the deck gun in an accidental discharge or something of the sort. Hardly a full blown military blockade with massive armada of warships ...

Just like the flakey circumstances we used to justify Vietnam. Its not like Vietnamese paratroopers were dropping into Des Moins.

And so if the filthy rich are getting shot at from off shore then I in Missouri are expected to get drafted lol, try again. Rich people need to fight their own wars, most poor people have very little to loose even if the USA were over ran.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2019, 02:31 AM
 
Location: Florida
10,479 posts, read 4,046,033 times
Reputation: 8491
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Pre-Reagan and all the way up to Richard Nixon's tenure, it was pretty obvious that the Democrats were the warhawks and the Republicans were the ones keeping/getting us out of wars. Love him or hate him, Reagan move the GOP into the super-militaristic space.
Was it Reagan though, or was it really George Bush Sr who was coming off of his tenure as head of the CIA, and with it, many business connections with the military defense contractors, along with his bud, Dick Cheney?

Sorry, but I just think Reagan was just a puppet for the real master, the Bush family. Heck, even the infamous NAFTA deal that was signed by Bill Clinton, was created by the Bush administration, and was just one of those deals that would have passed regardless who was president. Alot like Obamacare, was actually based on Mitt Romney's Massachusette's health care bill, and I am convinced it was one of those things that would have gone through regardless who is president. Goes to show you, the President in the grand scheme of things, has little bearing on real decisions. If they did, we would have been out of the Middle East by now when Obama was elected in 2008.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top