I believe you mean inflate? The more middle class people buy products, the more the prices of those products go up.
|
|
|
What is wrong with the USA?
- Thread starter Duster929
- Start date
I believe you mean inflate? The more middle class people buy products, the more the prices of those products go up.
I think we may have lived through a different financial crisis. Don't you remember the big banks going under, and the government having to inject billions to keep the economy going? The US financial system completely fell apart and shut down for over a year. I shouldn't have to make this argument. Because the banks were "too big to fail", they had to be bailed out. Because they failed.
Any idea how much spending we'd have to have done from 1945 to now, to still be the 4th largest standing military? It would be impossible for us to afford it.
I don't get your point. Which is it, eminently defensible, or a ***** to defend?
Some of them did yes. BoA as an example got help, corrected itself and is still around. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still going (although how I don't know). Hence my point is valid. However, I think we did live through two different economic crisis. You seem to think this is the first time this sort of economic crisis has happened. Have you heard about the great depression? Hell of a lot worse than this time and guess what? US recovered from that. Maybe we need another big war.
All about choices. But good on you for ignoring the rest of my point. Our small population base, as well as low enrollment would have made it impossible to maintain such a force. However, the goal of the Canadian military as we demilitarized post WWII was to have enough trained officers and equipment to quickly train the population in case of an imminent threat. Years of cutbacks and limited investment make this strategy unfeasible. Net net, we didn't maintain the standing military force and we didn't keep up with the strategy. So now we're having to make massive investments to keep up.
Hold on, let me get the rest of the quote you chose to leave out...
That's better. Would appreciate if you're going to quote me, you actually use the whole sentence instead of picking pieces to try and prove a point. Thanks.
In simpler english, while an invading force may be able to take the country, it will have a heck of a time holding it. There's a massive amount of geography an invader would need to police to be able to control the citizens AND get the resources it wanted.
Last edited:
The issue of racial tolerance is not of the Bible, it is more societal. In the southeast it was a cultural thing to many people that black people are inferior. So when they treat them less than a white person, they are treating that person equal to who they are - an inferior person. They do not see this as lacking tolerance, not turning the other cheek, it doesn't enter their train of thought.
Frequently I would hear that black people (i.e. Obama), don't know their place in society - that is code for someone acting more uppity than they should and trying to be someone they are not, white.
If the Bible specifically said don't treat black people inferior, then maybe they would change their views; but since it doesn't, clearly it didn't matter to God. Besides how can you treat someone as inferior if you don't think they are equal to you in the first place?
The US will run fine up until it runs out of gas, or until it becomes too expensive for the average person to get to work, just to make the world turn. So whats that..... 10 years maybe ?.
The USA is fail at fighting equilateral warfare.
They couldn't beat a bunch of third world goat****ers with outdated AK-47 and a few RPG's who blew themselves up more often than American soldiers with improvised weapons. They went home with their tails between their legs after 10 years of absolutely no progress like every other time they tried to win a war on their own...
The only war the US has ever won is the Civil war, and then, only half of it
How are they going to invade a Country like Canada? A First world high tec Country who has the material and knowledge to build small scale Nuclear devices, drive them across an undefended border and shove them up the *** of New York, Chicago and any other capital of their choice?
They couldn't tell who was the bad guy in Iraq and you think they would be able to tell with people who look, dress and talk like them?
LOL
Get real. Nobody fights firing line warfare any more.
Invading Canada is the last nail in their coffin. Not to mention that act would turn the entire world against them...
Y'all fear the biggest war losers in history.
Making you the biggest pussified nation in history who's idea of revolution is to "like" something on facebook and cry poverty into your $500 phone.
There will be oil in the ground for another 1000 years.
WTFU
They couldn't beat a bunch of third world goat****ers with outdated AK-47 and a few RPG's who blew themselves up more often than American soldiers with improvised weapons. They went home with their tails between their legs after 10 years of absolutely no progress like every other time they tried to win a war on their own...
The only war the US has ever won is the Civil war, and then, only half of it
How are they going to invade a Country like Canada? A First world high tec Country who has the material and knowledge to build small scale Nuclear devices, drive them across an undefended border and shove them up the *** of New York, Chicago and any other capital of their choice?
They couldn't tell who was the bad guy in Iraq and you think they would be able to tell with people who look, dress and talk like them?
LOL
Get real. Nobody fights firing line warfare any more.
Invading Canada is the last nail in their coffin. Not to mention that act would turn the entire world against them...
Y'all fear the biggest war losers in history.
Making you the biggest pussified nation in history who's idea of revolution is to "like" something on facebook and cry poverty into your $500 phone.
There will be oil in the ground for another 1000 years.
WTFU
The USA is fail at fighting equilateral warfare.
They couldn't beat a bunch of third world goat****ers with outdated AK-47 and a few RPG's who blew themselves up more often than American soldiers with improvised weapons. They went home with their tails between their legs after 10 years of absolutely no progress like every other time they tried to win a war on their own...
The only war the US has ever won is the Civil war, and then, only half of it
How are they going to invade a Country like Canada? A First world high tec Country who has the material and knowledge to build small scale Nuclear devices, drive them across an undefended border and shove them up the *** of New York, Chicago and any other capital of their choice?
They couldn't tell who was the bad guy in Iraq and you think they would be able to tell with people who look, dress and talk like them?
LOL
Get real. Nobody fights firing line warfare any more.
Invading Canada is the last nail in their coffin. Not to mention that act would turn the entire world against them...
Y'all fear the biggest war losers in history.
Making you the biggest pussified nation in history who's idea of revolution is to "like" something on facebook and cry poverty into your $500 phone.
There will be oil in the ground for another 1000 years.
WTFU
the u.s. could easily win any war it chooses. it has the military might and material capacity to steamroll all but about a dozen nations, and i'm not talking about nuclear--using conventional weapons only. when you spend more on the military industrial complex than almost every other nation in the world combined, the u.s. can dictate the results easily.
however, what it does not have is the political will to fight a war on terms like the eastern front in ww2. it holds itself up to an international standard, and is continually judged both at home and abroad.
as for the "oil in the ground for another 1000 years" claim--got any proof for that?
bobjohnson
Well-known member
The US could win any war it wants, it just chose not to every time it went to war.
Good call paintballer...
He's not wrong. You think the US couldnt just bomb indiscriminately in Iraq or Afghanistan and win those wars? Of course they can. Youre talking about a country that has missiles they can fire from their home soil and hit targets down to the meter 10k miles away. However thats not the goal. The goal was to get rid of people they didnt like while minimizing civilian casualties. If this was a true war, where armies march in and take cities regardless of the civilian costs, the US could have cleaned it up in a couple weeks.
The current wars are nothing like a war against an actual country with a standing army and a population that supports their government. The US hasnt fought a war like that since WW2. The US is only good at fighting wars like that, as shown in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (the second time) and Afghanistan, along with the lesser known wars. Guerrilla warfare is hard to combat when youre the invading country and trying to minimize casualties because the enemy doesnt wear uniforms and doesnt obey the rules of warfare. When your enemy has no problem sending women and children with bombs strapped onto them to kill troops, its harder to win wars without just bombing the **** out of everything.
WW2 isnt even comparable. Look at the German bombing runs on London civilian targets, or the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both completely disregarding civilian costs because the actual countries were at war. In Iraq, if one US bomb even goes off target and blows up a house with 5 civilians in it, countries from around the world are condemning them. The difference here is that we are NOT at war with Iraq, we are at war with a subset of the people within the country.
they are still a technological powerhouse. say what you want about all of their military spending, but a lot of that tech has filtered down to the average joe, over the years.
the u.s. still has massive resources, both physical and brain power, and economic clout.
Californian girls.
Says you. Your opinion / my opinion. Opinions on something that hasn't happened or, opinions on speculation. Both equally worthless.
The only thing that is fact is America can't fight equilateral warfare with any success. That's the way war is fought in this century. History lessons are nice but again, it's speculating on a future event not comparative analysis on past events. Even then, history shows the fail for whatever reason.
Canada = right next door across a massive undefended border. Too big to occupy fully. Too hard to identify who is a combatant. Impossible to get the go ahead from the UN.
If they target civilians (contrary to their own rules of engagement) against the Geneva convention the rest of the world will nuke them into the stone age. They don't "hold back" because they want to. It's because they have to. Otherwise it's ethnic cleansing.
By all means add the US to what you fear tho...
They are famine resistant.
they think outside the box.
They propagate the race regardless of side effects (like inbreeding)
etc. etc. etc.
Last edited:
bobjohnson
Well-known member
Says you. Your opinion / my opinion. Opinions on something that hasn't happened or, opinions on speculation. Both equally worthless.
The only thing that is fact is America can't fight equilateral warfare with any success. That's the way war is fought in this century. History lessons are nice but again, it's speculating on a future event not comparative analysis on past events. Even then, history shows the fail for whatever reason.
Canada = right next door across a massive undefended border. Too big to occupy fully. Too hard to identify who is a combatant. Impossible to get the go ahead from the UN.
If they target civilians (contrary to their own rules of engagement) against the Geneva convention the rest of the world will nuke them into the stone age. They don't "hold back" because they want to. It's because they have to. Otherwise it's ethnic cleansing.
By all means add the US to what you fear tho...
Im not scared of the US invading canada at all. More than likely canada would agree to become a state before that ever happened and in any scenario where a US invasion would be likely. Im just saying were the US ever in a war for territory where bombing the **** out of civilians was a valid option, there are few countries that could do anything about it. China, russia, england, canada, israel, india, pakistan, mexico... and thats about it. Not many countries have the ability to retaliate and move troops to american soil or hit north america with missiles. Take a look at the first Iraq war for an example of the US winning a war from afar with absolutely no casualties aside from friendly fire. When theres an actual army to fight and a government to sue for peace against, the US is a powerhouse in a way that no other country is. When it comes to guerilla warfare though, the guerilla fighters definitely have the advantage, so comparing a conflict like the current iraq war, or afghanistan, or vietnam, or any other war where we arent actually at war with a country is completely unfair. The conflicts ongoing at the moment technically not even war at this point, more of a peace keeping mission because there is no enemy, no standing army, no uniforms or anything like that (the IDF surrendered and the government was toppled and replaced, and in afghanistan we were never fighting an installed government, just the taliban which controlled sections of the country). Pretty hard to consider it a war when a group of 10 year old kids might be an "enemy unit" or might just be some kids on their way home from school.
And no, not all wars are fought like that these days. The first Gulf War was a traditional war, and traditional wars continue to be fought by other countries around the globe (mainly in africa, but also russias invasion of Georgia a couple years ago, etc) where its countries fighting each other and units of troops and tanks shoot at each other until one side retreats. Just because the western countries havent fought a real war since WW2 doesnt mean real wars dont happen anymore. We've just decided that territory wars are unnecessary and that its much better to trade or diplomatically get what you want rather than take it by force.
I get like that too when I do blow.
I just can't stop talking and in retrospect what I say doesn't make any sense to me either.
Coles it with a simple reply?
1. I agree with you.
2. I disagree with you.
3. I'm talking from personal experience being in one of the situations I just ranted about.
4. I have no idea how I got here without my pants.
I just can't stop talking and in retrospect what I say doesn't make any sense to me either.
Coles it with a simple reply?
1. I agree with you.
2. I disagree with you.
3. I'm talking from personal experience being in one of the situations I just ranted about.
4. I have no idea how I got here without my pants.
According to U.S. sources, Russia and China can move a huge majority of their population into well-prepared blast-resistant fallout shelters in 2 days.. That is to be taken as a warning for Americans to stock up and dig their own. If you don't believe me, read Kearney's Nuclear War Survival Skills Very educational and I hope to God, utterly useless
bobjohnson
Well-known member
Huh, 2 paragraphs is too much to read now? Ok.
1) Didnt know you were talking specifically about the US invading canada.
2) Traditional wars are still fought.
3) Only a few countries would be capable of inflicting casualties in an all-out war with the US, none of which are countries the US is likely to go to war with.
Better?
|
|
|
|
|