Do you want a world war?

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose a huge reduction in the population might be one benefit of a world war but the radiation likely produced would be a nasty deficit.

PS I did vote No.

 

[Glaurung]

I voted yes just to be contrarian. But four other people already beat me to it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I know there are some who’d like to thin the world’s population. Perhaps those w/ the same ideology voted yes?

Oops, someone already said that. Sorry.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you?

Nope, not with man controlling it.

If God controls it…. then that’s a different story. Men won’t have any fighting or say so in it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No world wars. Better to try diplomacy.

 

[Heyo]

Merely anti-rabbit propaganda. Don't believe the anti-rabbitists.

When it comes to rabbits I believe in the power of counting to three.

 

[Heyo]

It could be partly that, although I see war as about politics, and politics is about power. By engaging in war, we project our power and gain more control over territories and economies.

Do we? There is something to say about control of economies, or better, destroying competing economies but control over territories? That hasn't worked any more for over a hundred years. And when it worked temporarily, it wasn't worth the cost. (For the nations; for the corporations it was ideal that the public picked up the tab.)

 

[The Hammer]

I'm gonna go, no.

 

[Stevicus]

Do we? There is something to say about control of economies, or better, destroying competing economies but control over territories? That hasn't worked any more for over a hundred years. And when it worked temporarily, it wasn't worth the cost. (For the nations; for the corporations it was ideal that the public picked up the tab.)

Control over a territory can be accomplished by controlling the government that has jurisdiction over it. It doesn't always have to be done by force, but even the threat of force (or the enticement of bribery) can cause a weaker government to fall under the thumb of a larger government, even if it remains "independent" on paper. The U.S. government didn't need to officially annex Central America in order to benefit the interests of United Fruit, and in fact, it would have been counter to their interests to do so.

 

[Heyo]

Control over a territory can be accomplished by controlling the government that has jurisdiction over it. It doesn't always have to be done by force, but even the threat of force (or the enticement of bribery) can cause a weaker government to fall under the thumb of a larger government, even if it remains "independent" on paper. The U.S. government didn't need to officially annex Central America in order to benefit the interests of United Fruit, and in fact, it would have been counter to their interests to do so.

I agree that the US dominates wide areas of the Americas but outside of that they haven't been very successful, military or economically. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria ... where else have you tried it and failed hard?

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that the US dominates wide areas of the Americas but outside of that they haven't been very successful, military or economically. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria ... where else have you tried it and failed hard?

Well, South Korea might count as a partial success. Vietnam was a failed endeavor. When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, I think we got hoisted by our own petard and allowed ourselves to get played. Our biggest mistake appears to be that we were looking at these countries in the same way we looked at Banana Republics, which was clearly a gross error in judgment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When it comes to rabbits I believe in the power of counting to three.

It isn't counting that you have to worry about with us rabbits. It's our incredible ability at multiplication.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, South Korea might count as a partial success. Vietnam was a failed endeavor. When it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, I think we got hoisted by our own petard and allowed ourselves to get played. Our biggest mistake appears to be that we were looking at these countries in the same way we looked at Banana Republics, which was clearly a gross error in judgment.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Russia, etc are all huge successes for the arms dealers and manufacturers. It's big business and there appears to be no end in sight.

 

[Stevicus]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Russia, etc are all huge successes for the arms dealers and manufacturers. It's big business and there appears to be no end in sight.

Perhaps, although it's politically short-sighted. Those who favor peaceful solutions won't support this over the long term, and those who are more warlike will eventually insist that all this "big business" be done for America's interests alone.