Sign in to follow this  
jehh

A War We Can Afford

Recommended Posts

A possible war with Iraq raises many unknowns, but “can we afford it?” is not one of them. People inevitably ask that question, forgetting that the United States has become so wealthy it can wage war almost with pocket change.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/808059.asp?0bl=-0

-----------------------------------------------------------

Interesting to see the figures for % of GDP spending on the military, and for how absurdly weathly we have become.

So, the real question I have is, "can I reserve a spot on the Iraqi beach to watch the fireworks? I'll need room for two chairs, a beach umbrella, and a pair of strawberry daiquiris".

:twisted:

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think economicly speaking a war would have little effect on America...

Poeple have to build missles & bombs as they get used, but these poeple already have jobs (building missles & bombs)

it may help the stock market a little... (it'll boost sales for defence contractors, thus profits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answers to that question can vary greatly.

Q: Can you afford to attack Iraq unilaterally, ignoring the UN completely?

A: It would cost you money both short and long term because many people won't like you

Q: Can you afford to attack Iraq with a UN mandate?

A: Well yes. Basically the world tells you you can finally get rid of Mr Hussein

Q: Can you afford a war of attrition against Iraq?

A: Probably not. The longer a war lasts, the more people will start complaining (mostly the politico's). A short war, say less than one year of ground offensive, should definitely be doable.

Q: Can you afford a war which causes the entire Middle East to erupt in war?

A: Definitely NOT. The US itself can survive without Persian Gulf oil rather comfortably but many allies cannot.

Q: Can you afford a war with massive US casualties?

A: Unless Bush can make a huge majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to the US, no happy fellowing way. The US has never been invaded by another country in recent history (if ever?). As a result the US citizen doesn't know what it's like to live in an occupied country. So why would US troops have to die in massive numbers if the US is not at risk? The same is happening to most of Europe. the average teenager doesn't know dick about the war. Ancient history, right?

In short, I think the US can afford a war if:

-it can assure it's allies that their economy won't suffer too greatly from a war against Iraq

-it can get UN support

-the war either doesn't last long and/or US troops don't die in droves

-the administration can keep the politicians in line

Personally I don't think there's any reason to attack Iraq right now. Neither Bush nor Ms Blair have shown any evidence that Iraq is up to something. Until they do show evidence, evidence that can be corroborated by independent sources, it would even be illegal to launch an attack against Iraq. The whole thing with the weapons inspectors is only a sham if you ask me. Iraq has to let weapons inspectors on it's soil AGAIN without the reassurance that if nothing suspect is found, the embargo will be lifted. The entire embargo is ridiculous anyway just like the US policy against Cuba. With the USSR gone adn Russia basically an ally, the US government seems to need an enemy, however ridculous this may be.

If Saddam Hussein IS up to something... I'd support an immediate strike without thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gulf War never ended. there is only a cease fire in place. If Iraq violates the cease fire treaty (which they have numerous times) there nuts are back in the blender, its upto bush to plug it in....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q: Can you afford to attack Iraq unilaterally, ignoring the UN completely?

A: It would cost you money both short and long term because many people won't like you

Sure, but that wasn't the point of the Newsweek article. Can we afford to pay for the war ourselves. The answer to that question is most certainly *yes*. :)

Q: Can you afford to attack Iraq with a UN mandate?

A: Well yes.  Basically the world tells you you can finally get rid of Mr Hussein

The main beneifit to a UN mandate is that we can get other nations to help foot the bill, and we'll get support from most of the Middle East countries if it is a UN approved attack.

Q: Can you afford a war of attrition against Iraq?

A: Probably not.  The longer a war lasts, the more people will start complaining (mostly the politico's).  A short war, say less than one year of ground offensive, should definitely be doable.

If the United States of America cannot defeat Iraq within 6 months, we do not deserve our place as the world's only superpower.

This is not Vietnam where the NVA was being supported by the USSR and we didn't really want to win so much as avoid losing.

This is Iraq, an isolated nation without external support, and this time our goal will be to win outright as quickly as possible.

As such, there is no doubt we can win the military battle.

Q: Can you afford a war which causes the entire Middle East to erupt in war?

A: Definitely NOT.  The US itself can survive without Persian Gulf oil rather comfortably but many allies cannot.

The Middle East could use some good turmoil. The current situation is not favorable, most of those nations are run by various dictators and autocrats.

But I don't think anyone really considers that a big risk. We'll win too quickly for that to be a big issue, and with 1/4 of the American military in the Gulf for the war, who is going to start shooting? All it would do is provide the perfect pretext for further attacks by our forces.

Example: We're in the process of taking over Iraq. Iran picks that time to launch some missiles at our ships in the Gulf, or even our forces on the ground. Perfect excuse to take out the nutcases in Iran.

In truth, everyone in the Middle East will be on their best behavior while we're there.

Personally I don't think there's any reason to attack Iraq right now.

Sure, and by that logic there was no reason to attack Bin Ladin and the Taliban before 9/11 either.

I think most Americans would prefer to attack Iraq before another 9/11 happens, not after.

There was also no reason to attack Hitler after he invaded Poland in 1939, he wasn't attacking France, Britian, or the USA yet, and was talking about peace and other such deals.

Instead, he was simply biding his time until his forces were ready to take France, and of course he did in 1940.

Neither Bush nor Ms Blair have shown any evidence that Iraq is up to something.

Not true.

Saddam's own past shows that when left alone, he is up to no good. His own actions show that he simply cannot be trusted, thus the need for the weapons inspectors.

Without them, we have to assume that he is plotting evil acts. He either lets the weapons inspectors back in unconditionally, or we remove him. Simple as that.

Until they do show evidence, evidence that can be corroborated by independent sources, it would even be illegal to launch an attack against Iraq.

The first real hard evidence we had that Iraq was up to something against Kuwait was when his tanks rolled into Kuwait City in 1990.

I do not want the first real hard evidence that his is up to no good now to be a smoking hole in the ground where New York City once stood.

A few quotes for you:

"There simply isn't a case that this is a peace-loving man who wants to be left alone," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

“Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times. Not once, not twice, 16 times, he has defied the United Nations. Enough is enough,” -President Bush

Some administration critics have said, in effect, let sleeping dogs lie. Don’t provoke Saddam by threatening his life; there is no evidence that he has the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Countered White House national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, “Do we wait until he’s better at it?”

The whole thing with the weapons inspectors is only a sham if you ask me.  Iraq has to let weapons inspectors on it's soil AGAIN without the reassurance that if nothing suspect is found, the embargo will be lifted.

The problem is, you're blaming the wrong group.

The weapons inspectors were very close to certifiing Iraq in 1995, but then Saddam's brother-in-law defected and revealed a massive coverup of chemical and biological weapons, which more or less reset the inspections clock.

That is Saddam's fault, not ours.

Let me put this another way. Do you *really* believe that Saddam has no further weapons of mass destruction? I don't think anyone who has read Saddam's history would believe that is true.

The entire embargo is ridiculous anyway just like the US policy against Cuba.

Yes, on this we agree. Instead of hurting Iraqi civilians, we should just have killed Saddam 12 years ago and given their country back to them.

Sadly, we did not. :(

If Saddam Hussein IS up to something... I'd support an immediate strike without thinking.

Oh, good to know, because that means you do support a strike.

I'd swear on a stack of bibles that Saddam is up to something, and yes I would send my own children off to war over it. Saddam is up to no good, and has been for a very long time. It is time that we erase his evil from the world.

As you can probably guess, weapons inspections would not make me happy. Saddam's removal would. But then I supported his removal 12 years ago, so this is not a new thought on my part.

People who commit overt acts of aggression like invading two countries (Iran in 1980 and Kwuait in 1990) should not be allowed to run countries.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gulf War never ended. there is only a cease fire in place. If Iraq violates the cease fire treaty (which they have numerous times) there nuts are back in the blender, its upto bush to plug it in....

You know, I'm surprised that Bush hasn't menitioned that point.

No peace treaty was ever signed, technically Iraq and the United States are still at war.

We could reengage any time we like, politics being the only real issue to worry about.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Saddam Hussein IS up to something... I'd support an immediate strike without thinking.

I believe the question is not whether[/b] he is up to something, but rather, exactly what is he up to.

A guy like Hussein is always up to something. And it's usually not something good.

Even if you ignore the weapons of mass murder which Iraq has been steadily developing over the last decade, consider the fact that Iraq has broken every UN resolution. Bush outlined all of these nicely in his speech. Those blatant violations, alone, are enough to take some sort of action. Add the weapons of mass murder, and the fact that al-Qaeda operatives are certainly being sheltered there, and I believe you have all of the necessary ingredients to make up a pressing need for military action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We basically have four choices with Iraq:

1)Do nothing and hope he doesn't develop nuclear weapons and sell them to scum like OBL who would surely be happy to see NYC or Washington go up in a mushroom cloud.

2)Invade them with conventional forces, pull out after we have secured a regime change, and hope for the best. The problem here is that this is similar to what was done in Afghanistan in the 1980's, and whomever replaces Saddam might be worse. We might be sowing the seeds for our own destruction ten years down the road via nuclear terrorist attacks by going this route.

3)Invade Iraq by conventional forces, occupy it, and basically run the country long term, perhaps even make it the 51st state. While this will insure that Iraq is no longer a threat to us, other countries in the region might think that they're next, and launch preemptive attacks on us. Furthermore, politically this will be very unpopular, both at home and abroad.

4)Completely obliterate Iraq as both a people and a nation with a massive preemptive nuclear strike. Obviously a very unpopular and probably immoral option, but it will likely ensure our safety forever since no country from that point onwards would even think of defying us. Politically, it would isolate us from the world, and our leaders would no doubt be tried as war criminals, assuming that they could by caught.

Basically, all of the choices are like being between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy Mr. Bush right now. I would personally consider either option 3 or 4 if the decision were mine to make, although if Saddam were to already have nuclear weapons and use them, option 4 would be the only credible response in my mind.

Hopefully, Saddam will make the decision easier by launching a nuke at us or one of our allies(not that I wish it, but at least from that point onwards our course of action would be clear). With any luck, the weapon will miss it's target and do little damage, but make the point crystal clear that Saddam is as evil as Hitler or Stalin was, and must be eliminated at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear weapons are very difficult to produce. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons now.

How do I know?

He's never tested it, your own private nuke is useless, it would make Saddam invulnerable to this 'government change' chatter that Bush is engageing in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Middle East could use some good turmoil. The current situation is not favorable, most of those nations are run by various dictators and autocrats. 

The Middle East, of course would be much better if it was 'run by various dictators and autocrats that America can control'. I am glad, Jason that you have not lost sight of why the US is actually doing this.

Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile etc; the same story all over again. The US keeps the corrupt dictator in control just so long as he if a good boy. So what if he imprisons and tortures his people? How nice to have such foreign policy moral bankruptcy! Hang on...didn't Saddam used to be a 'good boy' when he was fighting Iran as an 'aggressor'.? The lucky benificiary of US finance and even satellite photos if I remember rightly. My, how things have changed for him. Still, it is nice to cherish your freedom I suppose, even when it means destroying the freedoms of countless others to 'protect' it.

P.S:

Instead, he was simply biding his time until his forces were ready to take France, and of course he did in 1940.

That is of course, rubbish. Hitler was interested in the East not the West. He was firmly of the belief that his Anglo-Saxon neighbours i.e Britain and France were his equals and he wished to come to an 'arrangement' with them. In the end, he only attacked in order to neutralise the threat of war on two fronts.

Britain and France only declared war because they were concerned that Germany would become militarily and therefore politically irresistable given time. Eventually, Germany given enough strength would have become rather like America has today, threatening their neighbours and all insundry with military action unless they got their way.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How nice to have such foreign policy moral bankruptcy!

For the benefit of The Giver, I am fully aware that the UK used to run it's empire in the same way. This fact does not, however preclude me from having an opinion! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Center for Defense Information (CDI) in Washington, DC, the US currently spends six times more on weapons and the men to use them than the next biggest spender - Russia - and twenty six times more than Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria all put together.

Total Military Expenditures for 2001 (US Dollars) & as Percentage of GDP

United States $396.1 Billion 3.2 ('99)

Russia $60.0 ('00) n/a

China $42.0 ('00) 1.2 ('99)

Japan $40.4 0.96 ('01)

U.K. $34.0 2.7 ('97)

Saudi Arabia $27.2 13 ('00)

France $25.3 2.5 ('97)

Germany $21.0 1.5 ('98)

Brazil $17.9 1.9 ('99)

India $15.6 2.5 ('00)

Iran $9.1 2.9 ('99)

Israel $9.0 9.4 ('99)

Canada $7.7 1.3 ('01)

Australia $6.6 1.9 ('99)

Singapore $4.3 4.5 ('00)

Pakistan $2.6 3.9 ('00)

Iraq $1.4 n/a

North Korea $1.3 25('98)

Philippines $1.1 1.5('98)

Indonesia $1.0 1.3 ('98)

Source: www.apo.org.au/webboard/items/00008.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JTR wrote: "Completely obliterate Iraq as both a people and a nation with a massive preemptive nuclear strike. Obviously a very unpopular and probably immoral option, but it will likely ensure our safety forever since no country from that point onwards would even think of defying us. Politically, it would isolate us from the world, and our leaders would no doubt be tried as war criminals, assuming that they could by caught. "

Not probably immoral, JTR. Inexpressibly evil. An act that, were you to be tried by a jury of your peers, and given that a "peer" is "an equal" or "someone from the same walk of life as you", would need the court to make contact with several well-known but long dead ghosts to ensure a fair trial. One imagines that the jury box would consist of the following luminaries:

Hitler, A (foreman)

Stalin, J

Pot, P

Amin, I

Tojo, H;

Hussein, S.

And you know, I'm not sure that these six bad men and true might not find you guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone else on that list together adds up to $327.5 billion, or $68.6 billion less than what the U.S. spends on defense. Am I the only one who thinks that there's something seriously wrong with that picture? BTW, no doubt most of Israel's $9.0 billion is courtesy of aid from the U.S., so it should be added to that total. There is no way a country of 4 million people with an economy largely in shambles can spend $9 billion annually on the military.

Maybe if the U.S. would stop pissing everyone off it wouldn't need to spend a fortune of defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not probably immoral, JTR. Inexpressibly evil. An act that, were you to be tried by a jury of your peers, and given that a "peer" is "an equal" or "someone from the same walk of life as you", would need the court to make contact with several well-known but long dead ghosts to ensure a fair trial. One imagines that the jury box would consist of the following luminaries:

Hitler, A (foreman)

Stalin, J

Pot, P

Amin, I

Tojo, H;

Hussein, S.

And you know, I'm not sure that these six bad men and true might not find you guilty.

I would probably add Bin Laden, Osama to that list as well, at least as an alternate juror. Anyway, I just brought it up to be complete in my list of options. There's no way, barring a nuclear attack on American cities, that the US would even consider that option. If anyone ever launches a nuclear strike on Iraq, I'll give 100 to 1 odds that it will be Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without clear evidence - and none at all has come to light so far - the US has no moral right whatsoever to take action against Irak. Which reminds me: last week I was sorting some stuff out in my shed. I found a Redback spider. (For those unfamiliar with Australian fauna, the Redback looks rather like, and is related to, the American Black Widow. It is similarly deadly.) Now the spider was doing me no harm at all, and was most unlikely to do me any harm in the future. I hardly ever go into that shed, and am always careful when I do, and it's a long, long way away from the house. No risk there. The Redback spider is, like all native Australian creatures, protected by law and canot be killed or made into a pet without a permit.

So I killed it anyway.

It probably didn't make any sense to do that, it was most certainly illegal and probably immoral, but I don't feel bad about it.

And were the US (or France, or anyone else) to take out Sadam and his evil regime, provided only that they did it with the minimum possible loss of innocent lives, I'd feel the same way. Sadam is doing me no harm, never will do me any harm, attacking him without proof of wrong-doing is most certainly illegal and quite probably immoral. I'd know perfectly well that the real reason for the act was nothing to do with world peace or anything else of that nature, it was just the desire to get re-elected - because GW Bush is such a piss-poor president that the only reason he got there in the first place is that the Democratic Party were so dumb that they put up Al Gore to oppose him. My dog could beat Al Gore! And I don't even have a dog. GW is just smart enough to realise that he is so dumb that without a war he can't get re-elected. So he wants to ignore international law and take out Irak. It's cynical, opportunist, and completely immoral.

But if it takes out Sadam .... shrug .... I know perfectly well I ought to care about it, but .... shrug.

Like when I killed that spider, I guess. Illegal and immoral, but who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden is strictly minor league. How many innocents has he killed? A few thousand? There is the 2800-odd from 911, plus the various other things he was behind previously, the details of which have slipped my mind. Let's be generous and call it 10,000 deaths.

Hey, this guy ain't even close to playing in the big league. There ain't a single member of my jury who didn't kill millions, although I have to admit that Hussein, S. is just a rookie-grade genocidal maniac, and that Pot, P. and Amin, I. only maned low single-digit millions of deaths - but be fair to these guys: Pol Pot and Idi Amin wanted to kill more than that, it was just that they lived in small countries and ran out of people. The real pros - Stalin, Tojo and Hitler - were well into double-digit millions of victims.

Mind you, if I was a talent scout for a Hitler or a Stalin, and I was trawling the minor leagues looking for an unknown younster with a lot of talent and the right attitude, one I could train up and unleash upon the world when old Joe hung up his mass-murderer's boots, yeah, I'd be talking to Bin Laden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile etc; the same story all over again.  The US keeps the corrupt dictator in control just so long as he if a good boy.  So what if he imprisons and tortures his people?

So, by way of logical extension, then, you are advocating taking these guys out of power earlier?

How nice to have such foreign policy moral bankruptcy!

Riiiight. We're the immoral ones. You keep on believing that, Vlad. What rubbish.

The one thing that has always been a virtue of the US is that we give these people a chance -- perhaps sometimes longer than we should give them -- to redeem themselves and improve the situation. Diplomacy.

Hang on...didn't Saddam used to be a 'good boy' when he was fighting Iran as an 'aggressor'.? The lucky benificiary of US finance and even satellite photos if I remember rightly.  My, how things have changed for him. 

That last sentence should have been phrased, "How he changed things for himself." His current situation is his own damn fault and no one else's.

You conveniently ignore the subsequent invasion of Kuwait, the Gulf War, the consequenting UN resolutions and his subsequent defiance of them, his gassing of his own people, his escalating buildup of weapons of mass murder, and the simple fact that foreign policy is a fluid entity. Past alliances do not necessarily dictate future ones.

Still, it is nice to cherish your freedom I suppose, even when it means destroying the freedoms of countless others to 'protect' it.

Riiiight, the USA, destroyer of freedoms. Come off it!

Throughout its history, the US has provided more freedom for more people around the world than most other countries combined.

Eventually, Germany given enough strength would have become rather like America has today, threatening their neighbours and all insundry with military action unless they got their way.......

Tring to equate the current situation vis-a-vis the USA and Iraq, with Nazi Germany's Holocaust, is beyond absurd.

I think you've lost it, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bin Laden is strictly minor league. How many innocents has he killed? A few thousand? There is the 2800-odd from 911, plus the various other things he was behind previously, the details of which have slipped my mind. Let's be generous and call it 10,000 deaths.  

Hey, this guy ain't even close to playing in the big league. There ain't a single member of my jury who didn't kill millions, although I have to admit that Hussein, S. is just a rookie-grade genocidal maniac, and that Pot, P. and Amin, I. only maned low single-digit millions of deaths - but be fair to these guys: Pol Pot and Idi Amin wanted to kill more than that, it was just that they lived in small countries and ran out of people. The real pros - Stalin, Tojo and Hitler - were well into double-digit millions of victims.  

Mind you, if I was a talent scout for a Hitler or a Stalin, and I was trawling the minor leagues looking for an unknown younster with a lot of talent and the right attitude, one I could train up and unleash upon the world when old Joe hung up his mass-murderer's boots, yeah, I'd be talking to Bin Laden.

You forgot Moa (30 million), saddam killed a million poeple, sure he's a JR madman, but all the really good madmen are already dead. This is the new world order, you gotta take your enemies where you can find'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1)Do nothing and hope he doesn't develop nuclear weapons and sell them to scum like OBL who would surely be happy to see NYC or Washington go up in a mushroom cloud.

This is the classic appeasement route.

History has shown that with men like Saddam, this is a really bad idea.

2)Invade them with conventional forces, pull out after we have secured a regime change, and hope for the best.  The problem here is that this is similar to what was done in Afghanistan in the 1980's, and whomever replaces Saddam might be worse.  We might be sowing the seeds for our own destruction ten years down the road via nuclear terrorist attacks by going this route.

We did this with Germany in 1918, and that caused the rise of Hitler.

This is even worse than the first choise.

3)Invade Iraq by conventional forces, occupy it, and basically run the country long term, perhaps even make it the 51st state.  While this will insure that Iraq is no longer a threat to us, other countries in the region might think that they're next, and launch preemptive attacks on us.  Furthermore, politically this will be very unpopular, both at home and abroad.

Forget making it the 51st state, but running it long term (i.e. 10 years) is the only reasonable solution.

4)Completely obliterate Iraq as both a people and a nation with a massive preemptive nuclear strike.  Obviously a very unpopular and probably immoral option, but it will likely ensure our safety forever since no country from that point onwards would even think of defying us.  Politically, it would isolate us from the world, and our leaders would no doubt be tried as war criminals, assuming that they could by caught.

This is so absurd, I don't even want to bother forming an inteligent reply to it.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear weapons are very difficult to produce. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons now.

How do I know?  

He's never tested it, your own private nuke is useless, it would make Saddam invulnerable to this 'government change' chatter that Bush is engageing in...

You are most correct. As soon as he gets one, he'll set it off so everyone knows.

The problem is, we don't know when that will be. Could be tomorrow, could be next week, might be next year, or could be 10 years from now.

Do you want to gamble and wait another few years before attacking, on the wishful thinking that it will be later rather than sooner?

Since we all know he is trying to get one, shouldn't we just deal with him now?

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Middle East, of course would be much better if it was 'run by various dictators and autocrats that America can control'. I am glad, Jason that you have not lost sight of why the US is actually doing this.

I would rather have a democracy in Iraq that didn't like America than a dictator who did.

But I'm not in sync with our political leadership there.

The US keeps the corrupt dictator in control just so long as he if a good boy.

Yea, we have tended to do that over the years. I disagree with this policy.

Hang on...didn't Saddam used to be a 'good boy' when he was fighting Iran as an 'aggressor'.? The lucky benificiary of US finance and even satellite photos if I remember rightly.

Yes, and he fell from grace with us when he invaded Kuwait without checking with us first, then he massed forces on the Saudi border, we were afraid our oil source was going to be taken over.

In truth, had Saddam pulled his forces back just north of Kuwait City and not threatened Saudi Arabia, he probably would have gotten away with that invasion.

That is of course, rubbish. Hitler was interested in the East not the West. He was firmly of the belief that his Anglo-Saxon neighbours i.e Britain and France were his equals and he wished to come to an 'arrangement' with them. In the end, he only attacked in order to neutralise the threat of war on two fronts.

Yes, that is true. But it doesn't change the fact that France thought they were safe from Hitler because he had not yet attacked them.

Hitler's main stratigic error in WWII was to attack the USSR before finishing off England. Without the bases in England and the British forces in Africa/Italy, the United States would probably not have been able to stop Hitler from taking over the USSR, or at least knocking them out of the battle.

Britain and France only declared war because they were concerned that Germany would become militarily and therefore politically irresistable given time.

No, Britain and France declared war because they had a mutual defense treaty with Poland. They declared war nearly automaticly, just two days after the invasion of Poland. They just didn't actually do much to help Poland.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the Center for Defense Information (CDI) in Washington, DC, the US currently spends six times more on weapons and the men to use them than the next biggest spender - Russia - and twenty six times more than Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria all put together.

Tannin,

The United States spends about $400 Billion a year on defense.

The rest of the planet spends about $500 Billion a year on defense.

We need only boost spending by 1% of our GDP to have half the entire planet's military budget.

Kinda freaky, is it not? :D

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not probably immoral, JTR. Inexpressibly evil.

Agreed... Nuking a bunch of civilians over what Iraq is currently guilty of, would be pure evil, and would make us a thousand times worse than the terrorists we're trying to stop.

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this