General Question

Odysseus's avatar

Will you support WWIII to save US/ world Economy ?

Asked by Odysseus (2746 points ) June 5th, 2009

history shows that war is the way out of debt.
What ya gonna do? Fight the fight; fight the system or sit and type on your keyboard till your days are numbered ?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

67 Answers

Kiev749's avatar

i feel that the country will not need an all out war to pull us out of the recession. We have already pulled the stock market up about 2000 pts in only 3 months. we will be fine.

basp's avatar

Used to be true that war was a way out of debt, but, that is no longer the case. WArs are fought differently now and technology is different. Look at the past eight years…....this war has only made our economy worse.

bythebay's avatar

That’s myth based on faulty logic. One can hardly leap to that conclusion, based mostly on the incident of the Great Depression, if there is a basic economic understanding.

Read up on basic world economics and The Broken Window Fallacy. The idea is outdated and really holds no merit.

jrpowell's avatar

So… You admit government spending is good for the economy.

Guns vs Butter.

kevbo's avatar

Wars are how banks insure that countries stay indebted to them (and they finance all sides).

Also, you might have noticed that we’ve been at “war” for the past 7 years already.

Triiiple's avatar

I dont think we will have a choice, helllloooo N. Korea!

Odysseus's avatar

Guys, WWIII will be a hell of a lot different than your illegal (attempted)invasions of poor 2nd world countries.

World War, thats gotta ease the financial pressure a bit
(assuming you can actually win for a change… lol.. .. sorry cheap shot)

bythebay's avatar

Hey @Odysseus, where do you reside?

Odysseus's avatar

Hey bythebay , it is common etiquette to introduce yourself before asking such questions

Odysseus's avatar

@dynamicduo you don’t seem too sure dude :-)

dynamicduo's avatar

How would you know what our etiquette is?

I’m a girl. You would know this if you cared to look in my profile.

And I’m 100% sure of my answer. Plus I’m Canadian, so I don’t give a shit about the American economy. Sure it affects ours, but we are in a much better situation than you guys are right now.

Beyond that, your theory is provably false. You guys are ALREADY in two wars, and your economy is in the shitter. Thus your thought that war = economy fixing is false.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

That is totally crazy. Destroying most of the wealth in the world will get nobody out of debt except the arms merchants and they are not in debt anyway.

Lupin's avatar

I’m buying American and voting with my $$$s.

kevbo's avatar

“History shows that war is the way out of debt.” = Arbeit macht frei.

bythebay's avatar

Hey @Odysseus: I’m @bythebay and I have a bio. In your first Q ever, about a week ago, you described yourself as an idiot…what an accurate self description based on your lame rebuttals. Perhaps you’d like to flesh your bio out a bit so that we may better understand your thought process.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

What pulled us out of the depression after WWII was the government stopping it’s spending and the lifting of the wartime controls on the country.
Where is your evidence that the Civil war did the American people any good at all. Sure slavery was gone but in the British empire they did not have civil wars.They got rid of slavery just fine.
The civil war was not about slavery anyway.

Odysseus's avatar

@keybo I’m no nazi, but the US government appears si to me.
@bythebay , lol hey dude :-) My apologies I’m new to this site and the bio requirement, Thank you for the insult it helps me learn.
If you must know, I’m a Scotsman biding in New Zealand.
@dynamicduo ,Dude/ dudette…. I don’t care !

dynamicduo's avatar

Yeah, I know you don’t care. It’s a bit obvious. Which is sad, because here people DO tend to care about each other. In the least, we respect each other.

kevbo's avatar

Yet you promulgate a premiss that perpetuates a destructive fallacy.

Odysseus's avatar

@dynamicduo, I have a PMS lover here at home, I’m sure you are loved on this
site mate but I’m not lookin for a flame war

bythebay's avatar

@Odysseus: Hey dude, I’m also not a dude, as stated in my bio, which is not a requirement. And for the record, you called yourself an idiot, I merely agreed.

Odysseus's avatar

@bythebay I do not deny being an idiot, as I believe most people ARE idiots, but I think my question made it clear that I was admitting to being an idiot on a specific subject namely finances

kevbo's avatar

Oh the irony.

Odysseus's avatar

@kevbo , Mr promulgate I can play your word game if you give me time to look through my dictionary, You are clearly highly literate but are you hiding behind your skill ?

Im no nazi, I do not proclaim that war is the only way to resolve a problem that has been resolved by war in bygone history. My question was an intent to unearth and incite indiciment on warmongers

Odysseus's avatar

Gramatically FUBAR

kevbo's avatar

Ah… well, I guess you’ve done that in the abstract (or in effigy). I don’t think there are many warmongers here to unearth, although there are plenty of folks who were happy about killing the pirates.

(for the record, I had to look up “promulgate” to make sure I was using it correctly.)

Odysseus's avatar

:-) delighted to meet you Mr promulgate

Odysseus's avatar

I like pirates :-)

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@kevbo They had to kill the pirates. They had a human hostage. If it had just been property they could have starved them until they were so weak that they could not lift the guns.

fireside's avatar

No, the global economy is linked together now and a world war would just create losers on all sides. Look at the $30 billion that was pulled out of the Russian stock exchange when they rolled tanks into Georgia.

It’s time for new thinking.

Odysseus's avatar

poor buggered pirates. Living in a toxic shitheap,,, what do they have to loose ?

fireside's avatar

Well, maybe if Somalia had a government things would improve for the country.

Odysseus's avatar

Lets teach them “WESTERN DEMOCRACY”

Odysseus's avatar

The hard way

fireside's avatar

I don’t think that’s on any serious agenda.
The people of the country have to want a government and want to improve their situation.

Just like you can’t teach a heroin junkie that life can be better if they get help.
It’s something they have to figure out for themselves.

Everybody reaches a bottom and they can choose to keep digging or finally build a ladder.

Odysseus's avatar

Sorry fireside, I wasn’t being serious. Im all 4 peace and understanding,,,,, gotta go now, my little cousin is about to be a first time father :-)
peace

kevbo's avatar

Hmmm… I wonder who supplied this metaphoric heroin?

fireside's avatar

@kevbo – yeah, I’m not saying that the gun running around the world hasn’t compounded problems. That’s one thing that needs to change if the world is ever going to avoid serious catastrophe.

mattbrowne's avatar

Yes, let’s go back and live in caves. The stone age people were debt free. Let’s destroy everything and bomb our way out of debt. You can’t be serious my friend. War is not the answer when it comes to recessions!

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

The Iraq war proved that theory to be completely untrue. That assertion could not be any more ridiculous or unethical.

War for the sake of a faltering economy is the worst of all ideas. We’re talking about sacrificing 1000’s of lives for money.

There’s better ways to rebuild the economy than death on such a massive scale.

Sorry, but I just can’t send people to go get shot in the face with a high powered weapon just so I can live a little more comfortably.

The very idea is absolutely offensive to me.

DarkScribe's avatar

history shows that war is the way out of debt.

No it doesn’t. That is ludicrous.

Yes, after long term major (world) conflict the western economies have improved, certainly not immediately, but steadily. Have you considered why?

During all out war the population has nothing – you lose everything, everything is rationed, food, fuel, technology etc. When you are down that low, the only way is up. War doe not magically improve economies, it ruins them, and that forces a restructuring and rebuilding.

CMaz's avatar

War use to be about real-estate. Now it is just about money. These days, you don’t need to take (physical) control of a country to control it.
War was the way out of debt when it created thousands of jobs. Now a handful of people make a few laser guided bombs and the party is over. What took massive armies, which equated to employing more people needed to keep the infrastructure going. Now takes a great deal less, and some laptops.
There is a season for everything, today I do just fine poking at my keyboard.

galileogirl's avatar

A bullet in the brain will also stop a headache but I wouldn’t recommend it. It makes more sense to solve the problem that caused it.

filmfann's avatar

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
GODZILLA!

mattbrowne's avatar

@galileogirl – Wonderful analogy!

RedPowerLady's avatar

I absolutely would not support another WW to “fix” the economy. Money (or an economic system) is not more important to me than the lives of people.

Bluefreedom's avatar

Supporting a World War in and of itself, no matter what it may or may not support, is patently absurd in my opinion. There are more sensible and much less dangerous ways to save and improve economies.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside They are under attack by outside governments. Maybe if those governments would stop it they would be better off too.

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – by they are you talking about the pirates? Seems like the efforts of other governments are being seen in a positive light.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside No I am not talking about pirates. Shooting them is fair game. The can and do shoot back. They are warriors in their own way.
I am talking about the US supported invasion by Kenya and other African countries to establish a government there. They were doing better without it. They do have their own laws and ways of doing things. The tribes and families insure the good behavior of the members. They have to pay if they misbehave. The incentive is strong to behave. As for the way they treat outsiders I don’t think that is covered. They are not part of the system.
My understanding is of course sketchy.

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – I am also not in full understanding of the situation, but here are a few things I have been able to find this morning.

Tensions between Somalia and Kenya extend back over 40 years:
“Preoccupation with Greater Somalia shaped the character of the country’s newly formed institutions and led to the build-up of the Somali military and ultimately to the war with Ethiopia and fighting in the NFD in Kenya.”
“The denial of Somali claims led to growing hostility between the Kenyan government and Somalis”
“the Voice of Somalia radio influenced the level of guerrilla activity by means of its broadcasts beamed into Kenya.”
“Ethiopia and Kenya concluded a mutual defense pact in 1964 in response to what both countries perceived as a continuing threat from Somalia. This pact was renewed in 1980 and again on August 28, 1987, calling for the coordination of the armed forces of both states in the event of an attack by Somalia.”

Timeline of US involvement in Somalia:
“December 1992 – The United States sends 28,000 troops to Somalia at head of ‘Operation Restore Hope’, a U.N. military effort to quell Somalia’s wartime famine.”
“October 1993 – 18 U.S. Army Rangers are killed when Somali militias shoot down two military helicopters”
“March 1994 – The United States ends its mission in Somalia.”
“August 1998 – Truck bombs claimed by al Qaeda kill 224 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Suspects include Somali citizens and the United States receives reports that al Qaeda members are in Somalia.”
“December 2002 – The United States sends 1,300 military personnel to establish a counterterrorism unit near Somalia.”
“Early 2006 – Somali warlords form an ‘Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism’ in Mogadishu. Experts on Somalia say the CIA is funding the group, whose members have been battling Islamic militias for control of the country.”
“June 2006 – Galvanising popular support with anti-U.S. rallying cries, Islamic militants take over Mogadishu and rout warlords.”
“Dec. 2006 – Islamists flee Mogadishu as a joint Ethiopian and Somali government force captures the capital. Diplomats say Washington gave tacit support—plus surveillance and intelligence help—to its ally Ethiopia.”

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside A real mess. I think it is always best that foreign troops stay at home and tend to defending their borders. I know that there are raids out of Somalia. Of course the raiders should be responded to with maximum force. I doubt that they are from the capital and I doubt that occupying the capital does anything more than create hatred. I am certain that whoever is helping the Ethiopians does not represent the other groups in the country. Aren’t the Ethiopians a different religion and or color.

asmonet's avatar

Sweet jesus, this thread is fucktarded.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@asmonet WWIII cures the economies problems by eliminating the human governments on the planet. Lets hope that some people survive.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside How come everybody else can give some people some food by air drops if necessary and the USA government needs 18,000 troops?

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – Try looking up Operation Restore Hope

“Expanded peacekeeping in Somalia began after the failure of UNOSOM I accompanied by the specter of 500,000 Somalis dead from famine by the fall of 1992 and hundreds of thousands more in danger of dying. Clan violence in Somalia interfered with international famine relief efforts, and President Bush sent American troops to protect relief workers in a new operation called Restore Hope. The US-led coalition approved by the [U.N.] Security Council in December 1992 had a mandate of protecting humanitarian operations and creating a secure environment for eventual political reconciliation. At the same time, it had the authority to use all necessary means, including military force. A joint and multinational operation, Restore Hope—called UNITAF (unified task force)—was a US-led, UN-sanctioned operation that included protection of humanitarian assistance and other peace-enforcement operations.”

By March 1993, mass starvation had been overcome, and security was much improved. At its peak, almost 30,000 US military personnel participated in the operation, along with 10,000 personnel from twenty-four other states. Despite the absence of political agreement among the rival forces, periodic provocations, and occasional military responses by UNITAF, the coalition retained its impartiality and avoided open combat with Somali factions—blending its coercive powers with political dialogue, psychological operations, and highly visible humanitarian activities.”

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside It sounds like they fixed things and everything is fine there now.

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – They weren’t there to fight with the Somali’s. It is not realistic to expect that they would “fix” the civil war taking place by simply providing humanitarian aid.

From Wiki:
“In May 1993, most of the United States troops withdrew and UNITAF was replaced by the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II). However, Aidid saw UNOSOM II as a threat to his power and in June 1993 his militia attacked Pakistan Army troops, attached to UNOSOM II, (see Somalia (March 1992 to February 1996)) in Mogadishu inflicting over 80 casualties. Fighting escalated until 18 American troops and more than 1,000 Somalis were killed in a raid in Mogadishu during October 1993. The UN withdrew Operation United Shield in 3 March 1995, having suffered significant casualties, and with the rule of government still not restored. In June 1996, Mohamed Farrah Aidid was killed in Mogadishu.”

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@fireside 1000 to 18 ratio. That sounds like a serious massacre by the Americans to me. It is a hell of a way to cure hunger but those thousand will eat no more.
It is not our job to feed other people. It is theirs. If only one person dies because of we do we are responsible for that death. We are not responsible if we do nothing. If somebody caused that famine we might have an excuse to destroy their power to do so. We obviously were letting such evil men continue in their ways. So we went there and killed a lot of people and fed some others for a while and left the place to those who were starving people on purpose.

That sounds like government work to me.

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – That sounds like a misunderstanding of the situation.
The mission had changed by that point.

Operation Continue Hope

Bluefreedom's avatar

@walterallenhaxton. The situation being talked about here is the same one in which Mark Bowden wrote about called “Black Hawk Down”. The number of Somalians killed (1000 was a published number) was by no means a massacre by United States forces. They were sent in at the worst possible time, daylight hours, to carry out a very dangerous mission in the middle of the hostile city of Mogadishu. The Army Rangers and Delta Force had to fight their way out against thousands upon thousands of armed civilians who shot down two of our Blackhawk helicopters. The U.S. forces did what they had to do to survive and make it out alive some 18 hours after constant firefights all through the day and night in built up urban terrain (the most dangerous type of war environment ever).

No, it isn’t our job to feed other people but we’re not called the world’s policemen for nothing. It is usually the United States that is called in to help other countries because we’re a superpower with the most money and resources and we answer the call when most other countries won’t. At the time we went to help out U.N. troops in Somalia who were outgunned and ineffective, Mohamed Farrah Aidid and his warlord clan (along with others) had already stolen U.N. food supplies that had starved 300,000 Somalians that depended on it. In a word, genocide. Enough was enough.

The United States should not be held personally accountable for deaths caused in our attempts to correct or improve on a heinous situation that is cruel and inhumane for the general populace. The deaths that occurred were collateral damage and believe me, I hate that term and that reasoning but it is what it is. Additionally, those thousands that died were aggressors trying kill American troops and not innocent civilian bystanders.

Yes, it is true that after this incident took place, we did let the evil men that perpetrated it continue in power with what they were doing. Let’s be clear on this though. The U.S. military is not the one that decided to pull out and leave the job unfinished. The Clinton administration gave the order to pull out our military and our government is partly to be blamed for the perpetuation of evil over there. It was government work in the end. It was the poor government work of the forgettable Clinton administration and presidency.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@Bluefreedom Exactly what did he do with the food? Hoard it in some warehouse? Destroy it? Or did he destribute it to people who were not politically conected to the UN. Remember also that the money to buy UN food comes from people being forced to give their property to other people.
It really is an important question. What happened to the food.

Bluefreedom's avatar

@walterallenhaxton. I don’t know exactly what he did with the food. I’d like to ask him personally but he’s dead, thankfully. Either he did hoard it, destroy it, or gave it to people who were most likely part of his warlord clan or others connected to it. He certainly did not give it to who it was intended for because, as I’ve already stated, 300,000 (and probably more) died of starvation because he stole it from the general populace who needed it most.

walterallenhaxton's avatar

@Bluefreedom If he gave it to people he probably prevented them from starving. If the food was sent there to prevent people form starving then it served it’s purpose. If it was sent there to alter the political balance then it did not. The real question is “What happened to stop the people there from earning and keeping the wealth needed to buy the food to feed themselves. I am certain that there are a lot of guilty parties. Since the people existed to starve in the first place things must have been conducive for human life there for some time in the past. Where did they go to?

fireside's avatar

@walterallenhaxton – When there was gang violence in Chicago, was it the fault of the shopkeepers that they were being extorted? Why did they stop keeping their wealth and start giving it to thugs with guns? Did government intervention at a federal level help avert the corruption at the local level?

I guess this discussion depends on whether you just want to stick your head in the sand or turn your back when something bad happens to someone other than yourself, or whether you want to live up to the goals of the UN and recognize that all people globally have rights that should be upheld.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther