What is a better US Gov investment for Future - Military Spending or Infrastructure

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SouthAmerica, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. Let the French do it. Wait, that's right Europe can' do anything but get into wars with each other.

    America should haved stayed out of WW2 and let Europe become Nazi. Nazi's would have been easier to deal with then the Communists

    Planet Earth without America would be a disaster. All you America haters are too stupid to understand it.


    John
     
    #61     Feb 5, 2007
  2. toc

    toc

    'but 50 thousand children die everyday because they don't have 2 cents worth of sugared water'

    in the today's trends of globalization, think about how much consumer goods would these 50K people would buy in the event they do not perish out of malnourishment. the new $120M F-22s would always look neat to the eyes of the NEOCONs. it is pretty evil out there in the neocon type circles.
     
    #62     Feb 5, 2007
  3. AK100

    AK100

    I doubt it John.

    Nazi Germany would have fallen to the Soviets and then the rest of Europe would have also.

    So in about 3 years America would have lost its largest and richest market.

    So no, the US was not as 'kind' to Europe as most of its citizens believe. Entering the war was nothing more than a long term business strategy to protect future trade.

    And what a great deal it turned out to be (for both sides). The US military-industrial machine proved its worth and the post war years in America were truly great for most people especially the economy.

    America post 1945 would have been a disaster without Europe. For example how many tyres did Goodyear sell or how many billions of $/£/Francs did US banks lend to western Europe from 1945 - 1990 verus the the soviet bloc?
     
    #63     Feb 5, 2007
  4. Wow, ive seen it all. Thats the worst, most idiotic, SPIN ive ever read.

    Might as well start claiming that whipping blacks in early america was good for them because it gave them strong thick skin :eek:

    Amazing how much blinding rage for america can take even its best accomplishments and turn around into something selfish and negative. :eek:
     
    #64     Feb 5, 2007
  5. If america would've let the germans take over Europe, what makes you think they would've stopped there? Why not cross over the atlantic?

    America's involvement in the war was a bussiness move, yes. But it was also a defensive move, they needed to stop the Nazi's, because they where much more dangerous than the Russians... You have to remember, it took both the US and Russia to stop Germany...

    So lets say yes. Military spending is justified in order to be prepared in case some psycho starts taking over countries to secure their resources for himself... while taking away every single liberty of those within his country, and jumping over every form of control they try to put on him... Now the billion dolar question, is...


    What good would all those billions spend in military strength do, if the psycho is in command of them?


    go Dubia... !
     
    #65     Feb 5, 2007
  6. Firstly I'm not from Europe, secondly calling America the greatest country on earth hardly makes me an American hater... but your stupidity is starting to turn me around on the whole subject
     
    #66     Feb 6, 2007
  7. John
    "All you America haters are too stupid to understand it."

    That statement is a reflection of yourself, not of other people.
     
    #67     Feb 6, 2007
  8. .

    traderdragon2: Anyway you cut it, the military spending is a hell of a lot cheaper than another 48 million dead in another WWII style war.


    ***********


    February 6, 2007

    SouthAmerica: In 1940 the world population was 2.3 billion people. By 1945 despite the war the world population had increased to 2.35 billion people.

    Today for us to have another WWII style war and with an equivalent rate of total death related to the war – since today’s population has increased to 6.5 billion people – then if you do the math we would need that at least 150 million people would have to die.

    Today if only 48 million people dies in a WW III - then that number of deaths would be considered just a minor war when compared with WW II.



    .
     
    #68     Feb 6, 2007
  9. toc

    toc

    'Anyway you cut it, the military spending is a hell of a lot cheaper than another 48 million dead in another WWII style war.'

    The US Military might is way ahead and superior to several major powers combined plus what is the probability that US will go to war against UK, Germany, France and other powers. US can still seek some shrewd cuts in its defense budgets all the while maintaining vast superiority over hostile nations.

    US can now launch the first strike on Russia without facing similar reaction.........such bad is the shape of Russian Army.

    USAF can defeat all the major air forces combined in any air war anywhere. France, Israel, UK, Russia, Germany combined cannot defeat the USAF.

    Until and unless the economists advising the White House have some brilliant plan at works to pull US out of the debt scenarios, the wise thing to do would be to seek budget cuts and bring the balance sheets into some sort of respectability.
     
    #69     Feb 6, 2007
  10. Ha ha... evil doers... is that most lame psychological projection since "evil empire"
     
    #70     Feb 6, 2007