BF2S Forums Why are we involved in Libya?

Jay wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

....probably?

You're seriously going to sit here and argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs? A few medical procedures are worth the price of millions of lives in the past century alone? Hardly.

Now, you're either profiting off of the war industry or you're one of those wankers that jerks off to old military histories about Wellington and Monty. Perhaps your one of those that gets his jollies by dressing up in period dress and ramming a fake bayonet into his opponents abdomen. So which is it? No rational human being can possibly make the ridiculous statement that war is in any way profitable for the human race. This is doubly so for people that have actually experienced war as many of us on this forum have. So kindly take your opinion and shove off to the nearest BNP rally.

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

....probably?

You're seriously going to sit here and argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs? A few medical procedures are worth the price of millions of lives in the past century alone? Hardly.

Now, you're either profiting off of the war industry or you're one of those wankers that jerks off to old military histories about Wellington and Monty. Perhaps your one of those that gets his jollies by dressing up in period dress and ramming a fake bayonet into his opponents abdomen. So which is it? No rational human being can possibly make the ridiculous statement that war is in any way profitable for the human race. This is doubly so for people that have actually experienced war as many of us on this forum have. So kindly take your opinion and shove off to the nearest BNP rally.

playing devils advocate here, I wonder what the world population would be, blowing through natural resources and the environment, to feed, heat build provide electricity, cars, housing, govt. subsidizes etc, if no one was ever killed off in a war.

How many people would this world inhabit today, if not for WW2?

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

You're seriously going to sit here and argue that the benefits of war outweigh the costs? A few medical procedures are worth the price of millions of lives in the past century alone? Hardly.

Now, you're either profiting off of the war industry or you're one of those wankers that jerks off to old military histories about Wellington and Monty. Perhaps your one of those that gets his jollies by dressing up in period dress and ramming a fake bayonet into his opponents abdomen. So which is it? No rational human being can possibly make the ridiculous statement that war is in any way profitable for the human race. This is doubly so for people that have actually experienced war as many of us on this forum have. So kindly take your opinion and shove off to the nearest BNP rally.

playing devils advocate here, I wonder what the world population would be, blowing through natural resources and the environment, to feed, heat build provide electricity, cars, housing, govt. subsidizes etc, if no one was ever killed off in a war.

How many people would this world inhabit today, if not for WW2?

We're not overcrowded. Hell, the western world has a negative birth rate for the most part.

Shocking wrote:

It also thinned out the resources. Any idea how much iron was used in WW2? Ended up with there being more demand for iron than there was supply of it, unprecedented.

Ilocano wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

We're not overcrowded. Hell, the western world has a negative birth rate for the most part.

not now we are not, but suppose WW2 never happened. You gotta admit, WW2 really thinned out the herd so to speak.

Not as much as the major plagues/flu epidemics.

lowing wrote:

except the end of fascist Germany's grip on Europe? maybe? sorta? kinda?

and yes like it or not, war creates leaps in technology.

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

except the end of fascist Germany's grip on Europe? maybe? sorta? kinda?

and yes like it or not, war creates leaps in technology.

I'm looking at the progress as a whole, rebuilding Europe cost an insane amount of money, time and effort. I doubt those technological advancements that were made would not have been achieved if so much wouldn't have to be wasted on rebuilding infrastructure. It was a net loss if you look at the big picture. It's a peak moment followed by an enormous slump.

The war itself was definitely necessary though, I'm not arguing that.

Shocking wrote:

Well yes that's definitely true. The space race did it right in getting that mindset to work without having to kill eachother off. Too bad there's been no efforts to reproduce that sort of thing since.

burnzz wrote:

light, sweet, crude . . .

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

GPS, ENIAC, cellular, jets.  But yeah, I'm kind of wondering Jay's take on parasite.

He's a bit confused, as those jobs are private sector jobs in divisions of private sector corporations. It's not like the government is building those bombs in government bomb factories with government workers.

No, I'm not confused. How is it a private sector job if the money is coming wholly from the government? It's merely the illusion of a private company. The company would not exist without government largesse, therefore it does not fit the definition of the private sector.