page 2 for fagg0t ass niggers

1/16/2006 11:36:10 AM

war can have profitability in terms of recources gained from countries that you win over. I remember reading that in Iraq, that has yet to prove to be the case as we are not currently getting more oil from that country than before the war.

but war by all means CAN be profitable. there will never come a point when it can't be. even if we're currently having unprofitable wars. And go ask salisburyboy who's currently profiting from the Iraq war btw.

1/16/2006 4:32:37 PM

^ You would have to ask: "profitable for who?"

I'll conceed that a war can be profitable for a government, as it can now tax and loot the conquered. However, only the institution of slavery could then produce net benefits for the victor society. Odds are, even with more money in the government coffers from looting the burden will remain high, or hopefully return to normal, just to pay for the war and subsequent policing.

The average citizen of the victor country may feel better, but their individual productivity has not been increased and might have even been decreased due to investment being used for war-making instead of capital accumulation, labor diverted to soldiering, and general trade disruption.

That being the general case. However, I guess Iraq might have been an exception had the war been executed like it was 1905.

1/16/2006 10:56:09 PM

I think it's important to define "World War." Even in Iraq we have a conflict that involves countries from all over the world, but nobody in their right mind would say it qualified. The same can be said to an even greater extent for Afghanistan and the "War on Terror," which is certainly more far-flung.

If North Korea went batshit, it's probable that almost the entire world would be involved in the war against it, but nobody would really take its side -- even China. For all its problems, that country could see the writing on the wall.

If there's another conflict between two large factions on a global scale, it will take one of a few forms:

1) The United States and NATO or the EU vs. China, North Korea, and possibly Cuba, following a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. China alone constitutes a "large faction," and a couple of minor allies besides only serves to help. I personally find this an unlikely scenario, but one worth considering.

2) The United States, Israel, and some/all of the EU/NATO countries vs. an alliance of Muslim powers. This one also seems unlikely (as the afforementioned Muslim powers are often tied strongly with US or other interests, and in general don't get along particularly well with one another). However, it strikes me as marginally more likely than Scenario 1, if only because we've really pissed off a lot of Muslims in recent years.

3) A multilateral war between India, Pakistan, and China, probably with the two latter countries on the same side, which would draw the rest of the world in. Agan, unlikely -- all three countries are patching up differences lately, and even if their successes in that direction are minor, at least things aren't getting worse. Plus, as with Scenario 1, China has too much to gain from being nice to throw it all away to support a minor semi-ally and gain a few territories in India when it's already fucking huge.

Final assessment: Another World War is a long ways off if it's in the cards at all. People like money too much. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the War on Terror was the closest thing to a World War we had for the next hundred years.

1/16/2006 11:11:40 PM

i could use a break from all this peace.

1/17/2006 1:03:21 AM

In the year 2020. Water will be such a hot commodity we'll all be in war over resources b/c we'll be facing/experiencing famine worldwide. Unless there is an energy efficient method created by then to use the ocean water, which is probably possible, but we don't look to be advancing toward that anytime soon. If we do end up with the technology in time, we'll see a world war anyway because other countries without the technology will want to take over ours (and other countries that have it).

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ]

1/17/2006 11:39:22 AM

^ I think the technology you are looking for is a bucket to catch rain.

1/17/2006 11:54:49 AM

No, that's a part of the hydrologic cycle that will eventually run out (freshwater).

1/17/2006 12:03:47 PM

you are a goddamned idiot.

1/17/2006 12:04:41 PM

Okay tell that to the scientists You think I just came up with it on my own?

1/17/2006 12:19:04 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 4:04:38 PM

thats because you are obviously baller as fuck

1/18/2006 4:48:01 PM

I'm seeing where GrumpyGOP is comming from on this one. I have to concede that there are no large collations of nations at each others throughts. Iraq, Afghanistan, any country that has seen large military action from highly developed nations of the world in this last 50 years has stood alone alone alone. If there were any huge organized military force in the world, i think trade would hold out until the good old U.S. drowns itself in debt or whatever the ultimate consequence of that will be.

In comparsion to the 2 and only "world wars" the dominant blood baths of history have opted to have descriptive names in stead. If we had anything other than half the world aginst the other half (with a few oddballs not fighting) it certainly wouldn't be a world war. But we can still have the "oil wars" or the "recource wars" defining our section of history. That could possibly happen in the case that science and industry failed to deliver feesable solutions to many problems we're going to face at just the right time for it to become a political force to give the Bush family ultimate control over this nation or something.

1/18/2006 10:48:46 PM

Quote :

"war can have profitability in terms of recources gained from countries that you win over. I remember reading that in Iraq, that has yet to prove to be the case as we are not currently getting more oil from that country than before the war. but war by all means CAN be profitable."

1. you're an idiot. the iraq war is not about oil or procuring their resources. even if we are getting more oil from them than before the war (I have no doubt, given the pre-war sanctions that are now mercifully ended), we've spent eleventy trillion dollars. We're way in the red from a business standpoint. WAY in the red.

2. of course war can be profitable. you're right, there. how do you think we got to be a superpower to begin with?

[Edited on January 18, 2006 at 10:57 PM. Reason : wrong tag]

1/18/2006 10:56:25 PM