Change in America

[bhsmte]

Not really, who is going to be doing the attacking? if countries thought as you say why would they not just have a token force? why have a standing military at all? who are the enemies in this world? the only enemies are the people who have the things that we all want.

If America was smart it would reduce it's military spending by half and buy everything it needs from the rest of the world,
the wealth would be distributed around the world and the standard of living would go up around the world.

Making people hate you is not the best way to make friends in this world, the US is the strongest country at the moment so it should learn to not throw it's weight around but throw it's money around instead.

The Americans lost the Viet Nam war because they were not fighting an army they were fighting an idea, the same thing is happening in the middle east, let your money do the talking and the buying and for the middle east the US will be the best thing since sliced bread, make people happy and secure and they will be in your debt forever.

It could be, that are allies don't spend more in military defense, because they know they have the trump card in their back pocket. And having a token force, is never an option, as history has taught us.

The US lost the viet nam war because they fought a limited war (a political war) and could have crushed North Viet Nam at any time, if they really wanted to.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The problem is that the nanny state mentality makes welfare programs the rule instead of the exception. No one who speaks against welfare wants to take anything away from those who really need help, just from those who find it easier to get help than to help themselves. Hand ups, yes. Hand outs, no.

Why don't you do yourself a favour and read books and watch video's for yourself, try to see what the other side is saying,
try to see how other countries operate without the information going through a republican mouthpiece first.

See how things are for yourself, when I read your post I can hear the people who told you all of it speaking in the background, it seems you are parroting the words others have primed you with.

There is no such thing as "a nanny state" anywhere in the world to my knowledge, does anyone know of one?

 

[Armoured]

It could be, that are allies don't spend more in military defense, because they know they have the trump card in their back pocket. And having a token force, is never an option, as history has taught us.

The US lost the viet nam war because they fought a limited war (a political war) and could have crushed North Viet Nam at any time, if they really wanted to.

Assuming the Sovs and the CHICOMS didn't come to the party.

Now explain why 10 years of fighting in the Middle East hasn't resolved anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no such thing as "a nanny state" anywhere in the world to my knowledge, does anyone know of one?

 

[Jan Volkes]

It could be, that are allies don't spend more in military defense, because they know they have the trump card in their back pocket. And having a token force, is never an option, as history has taught us.

The US lost the viet nam war because they fought a limited war (a political war) and could have crushed North Viet Nam at any time, if they really wanted to.

You mean destroyed Viet Nam, yes you could but I don't think the rest of the world would have sat back and let that happen because they would all be wondering "who's next?".
America can act like the class bully until it starts threatening the whole class.

 

[pakicetus]

New Zealand at one time had 1/3 of the population working while 2/3 were living of welfare.

When was that? If it ever happened -- which I doubt, because every other statistic you've cited was wrong -- it's a complete outlier for socialist countries. Here are the labor participation rates (for ages 15-64) for the first-world countries with the highest social spending:

1.

France: 71%
2.

Finland: 76%
3.

Belgium: 67%
4.

Denmark: 78%
5.

Italy: 64%
6.

Austria: 76%
7.

Sweden: 81%
8.

Germany: 77%
9.

Netherlands: 79%
10.

Slovenia: 71%
Total: 72%

Here they are for the first-world countries with the lowest social spending:

1.

South Korea: 66%
2.

Estonia: 75%
3.

Iceland: 84%
4.

Canada: 78%
5.

Slovakia: 70%
6.

Australia: 77%
7.

United States: 72%
8.

Switzerland: 83%
9.

Czech Republic: 73%
10.

Poland: 67%
Total: 72%

In other words, even if New Zealand once had very few people working, socialist countries in general have the same number of employed people as laissez faire countries.

 

[Armoured]

When was that? If it ever happened -- which I doubt, given the fact that every other statistic you've cited was wrong -- it's a complete outlier for socialist countries. Here are the labor participation rates (for ages 15-64) for the first-world countries with the highest social spending:

1. France: 71%
2. Finland: 76%
3. Belgium: 67%
4. Denmark: 78%
5. Italy: 64%
6. Austria: 76%
7. Sweden: 81%
8. Germany: 77%
9. Netherlands: 79%
10. Slovenia: 71%
Total: 72%

Here it is for the first-world countries with the lowest social spending:

1. South Korea: 66%
2. Estonia: 75%
3. Iceland: 84%
4. Canada: 78%
5. Slovakia: 70%
6. Australia: 77%
7. United States: 72%
8. Switzerland: 83%
9. Czech Republic: 73%
10. Poland: 67%
Total: 72%

In other words, even if New Zealand once had very few people working, the trend for socialist countries in general is that their labor participation rates are completely normal.

It really bothers me hearing New Zealand described as in any way normal. I'm sorry, I know it's off topic, but you know, just ugh *shudder*

 

[bhsmte]

Assuming the Sovs and the CHICOMS didn't come to the party.

Now explain why 10 years of fighting in the Middle East hasn't resolved anything?

And one of the reasons we fought a limited war, not wanting the soviets to come to their direct aid, even though they were helping them in other ways.

The middle east is an area that is driven by many radicals, with strong ideologies. We could wipe them out too, but they would just build back up again and you would be dealing with them again in 5 or 10 years. Same thing with Viet Nam, we could have wiped them out for the short term, but there is the chance they come back again in time.

My point is, both the middle east and viet nam were examples of fighting half way and pretending it would make a difference. I will admit though, fighting full out, would have made a more significant short term difference, with no guarantee it would last.

You can't fight ideology with force. People need to figure out on their own, their ideology is wrong, like the fall of the soviet union as an example.

 

[outsidethecamp]

Not really, who is going to be doing the attacking? if countries thought as you say why would they not just have a token force? why have a standing military at all? who are the enemies in this world? the only enemies are the people who have the things that we all want.

If America was smart it would reduce it's military spending by half and buy everything it needs from the rest of the world,
the wealth would be distributed around the world and the standard of living would go up around the world.

Making people hate you is not the best way to make friends in this world, the US is the strongest country at the moment so it should learn to not throw it's weight around but throw it's money around instead.

The Americans lost the Viet Nam war because they were not fighting an army they were fighting an idea, the same thing is happening in the middle east, let your money do the talking and the buying and for the middle east the US will be the best thing since sliced bread, make people happy and secure and they will be in your debt forever.

Notice that the government always must manufacture an "enemy" without to justify large military expenditures (for the military industrial complex) and "enemies" within to keep the people divided.

Vietnam was lost because it became a political war, taken from the generals on the ground and given to the politicians to make the calls. Hanoi was deemed by the politicians to be protected and therefore was off limits to bombing. That is why North Vietnam moved all their ammunition, rockets, etc to Hanoi. Countless lives could have been saved on both sides had the politicians not taken the controls away from the Generals. But, we should not have been there in the first place and our government manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin false flag to convince Americans that we must invade. Again, they manufactured another "enemy". Such is the way of this world.

We could win in Afghanistan, too. We only fight enough to protect the poppy fields. The CIA is involved in a global drug trade.
https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?search=cia+drug+trafficking&title=Special:Search&go=Go

But another "Enemy" was manufactured for that war, too.

 

[bhsmte]

You mean destroyed Viet Nam, yes you could but I don't think the rest of the world would have sat back and let that happen because they would all be wondering "who's next?".
America can act like the class bully until it starts threatening the whole class.

Our allies were fine with it when we were fire bombing Germany and Japan during WW2 and they were cheering us on.

Collateral damage back then was acceptable and people turned a blind eye to it. Today, it is a different story.

 

[Armoured]

Notice that the government always must manufacture an "enemy" without to justify large military expenditures (for the military industrial complex) and "enemies" within to keep the people divided.

Vietnam was lost because it became a political war, taken from the generals on the ground and given to the politicians to make the calls. Hanoi was deemed by the politicians to be protected and therefore was off limits to bombing. That is why North Vietnam moved all their ammunition, rockets, etc to Hanoi. Countless lives could have been saved on both sides had the politicians not taken the controls away from the Generals. But, we should not have been there in the first place and our government manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin false flag to convince Americans that we must invade. Again, they manufactured another "enemy". Such is the way of this world.

We could win in Afghanistan, too. We only fight enough to protect the poppy fields. The CIA is involved in a global drug trade.
https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?search=cia+drug+trafficking&title=Special:Search&go=Go

But another "Enemy" was manufactured for that war, too.

Not that I'd put it past the CIA, of course, but "wikispooks"? Seriously?

 

[Armoured]

And one of the reasons we fought a limited war, not wanting the soviets to come to their direct aid, even though they were helping them in other ways.

The middle east is an area that is driven by many radicals, with strong ideologies. We could wipe them out too, but they would just build back up again and you would be dealing with them again in 5 or 10 years. Same thing with Viet Nam, we could have wiped them out for the short term, but there is the chance they come back again in time.

My point is, both the middle east and viet nam were examples of fighting half way and pretending it would make a difference. I will admit though, fighting full out, would have made a more significant short term difference, with no guarantee it would last.

You can't fight ideology with force. People need to figure out on their own, their ideology is wrong, like the fall of the soviet union as an example.

I'm not sure how you fight an insurgency any more "full out" than we have been.

 

[Belk]

Wow, I shook the Democrat tree, and look what fell out. These are the loving, caring, folks who want your vote. I rest my case.

So far your case seems to consist of telling minorities they should not vote for democrats because the democrats are only paying token respect to their issues.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure how you fight an insurgency any more "full out" than we have been.

Depends on how willing you are to deal with collateral damage.

It is my understanding, that our current fight against ISIS, has the majority of the sorties they are flying coming back without any bombs being delivered, because they are concerned about collateral damage.

 

[Hetta]

Our allies were fine with it when we were fire bombing Germany and Japan during WW2 and they were cheering us on.

Collateral damage back then was acceptable and people turned a blind eye to it. Today, it is a different story.

That was a war against a known and acknowledged enemy. Vietnam was not.

 

[outsidethecamp]

When was that? If it ever happened -- which I doubt, given the fact that every other statistic you've cited was wrong -- it's a complete outlier for socialist countries. Here are the labor participation rates (for ages 15-64) for the first-world countries with the highest social spending:

1.

France: 71%
2.

Finland: 76%
3.

Belgium: 67%
4.

Denmark: 78%
5.

Italy: 64%
6.

Austria: 76%
7.

Sweden: 81%
8.

Germany: 77%
9.

Netherlands: 79%
10.

Slovenia: 71%
Total: 72%

Here they are for the first-world countries with the lowest social spending:

1.

South Korea: 66%
2.

Estonia: 75%
3.

Iceland: 84%
4.

Canada: 78%
5.

Slovakia: 70%
6.

Australia: 77%
7.

United States: 72%
8.

Switzerland: 83%
9.

Czech Republic: 73%
10. Poland: 67%
Total: 72%

In other words, even if New Zealand once had very few people working, socialist countries in general have the same number of employed people as laissez faire countries.

80s and 90s

"Slow economic and job growth and demographic changes, including a significant increase in sole parents and teenage parents, caused caseloads for unemployment and the DPB to grow steadily through the 1980s and into the early 1990s. With the economy experiencing little or no growth for much of this period, the extensive services and benefits available through the welfare state became more and more difficult to maintain.

To reverse the trend toward higher DPB caseloads, the Government’s 1998 welfare reforms require beneficiaries with children over age fourteen to look for full time work. Beneficiaries with children between seven and fourteen are required to look for part-time work, and those with children younger than seven will be required to attend an annual planning meeting to discuss their prospects for future employment."

Read the complete report, here.

 

[Armoured]

Depends on how willing you are to deal with collateral damage.

It is my understanding, that our current fight against ISIS, has the majority of the sorties they are flying coming back without any bombs being delivered, because they are concerned about collateral damage.

Not really relevant, since air strikes can't win ground wars. How much collateral damage do you think is acceptable?

 

[outsidethecamp]

Our allies were fine with it when we were fire bombing Germany and Japan during WW2 and they were cheering us on.

Collateral damage back then was acceptable and people turned a blind eye to it. Today, it is a different story.

Why do you think we were late coming into the World War II? Google Ford, GM and Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum's involvement in the War (helping Germany). And while you are at it, check out Prescott Bush and Alan Dulles' involvement in the War. America became a world power after that war. Ever heard this statement? "War is good for business"?

 

[bhsmte]

Why do you think we were late coming into the World War II? Google Ford, GM and Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum's involvement in the War (helping Germany). And while you are at it, check out Prescott Bush and Alan Dulles' involvement in the War. America became a world power after that war. Ever heard this statement? "War is good for business"?

We delayed entering WW2 because people still remembered how many lives were lost in WW1. There were also a good deal of people who isolationists, who felt Europe should deal with their own problems. If Japan had not attacked us on our own land, it may have been another year or so longer, before we entered the war.

Once we got in though, it was full bore and much different, from how we fight wars today.

 

[outsidethecamp]

We delayed entering WW2 because people still remembered how many lives were lost in WW1. There were also a good deal of people who isolationists, who felt Europe should deal with their own problems. If Japan had not attacked us on our own land, it may have been another year or so longer, before we entered the war.

Once we got in though, it was full bore and much different, from how we fight wars today.

You are more than free to believe that.