209 Years

[Mark Ducati]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eCIQUtCyUns/Tf-ugfOZQJI/AAAAAAAACDE/3_Sctswscrw/s1600/wars-America_USA_List-Chronology_Years.jpg

[blacksheep]

Puts it all in perspective doesn't it.:dammit:

[mriddick]

The 47 years credited to the cold war really accounts for a huge chunk of the time doesn't it.

[stinker]

Happens when your military budget accounts for around 47% of all military spending in the known universe.

When you have a standing means of slaying monsters you at some point begin to seek monsters to slay in order to justify the expense of maintaining it. Usually sooner than later.

[imanaknut]

Should the cold war be counted since it never got hot? Or is this just to show that we have been spending money on a military?

Either way, the price of freedom isn't cheap, and I would rather have the strongest military in the world and live free than cowering in a corner praying that my door doesn't get kicked in by the next "Hitler".

[Kadmos]

Geez, I guess the Korean war is still America's forgotten war

[Warthogg]

Geez, I guess the Korean war is still America's forgotten war

Good catch kudnoss.


Wart

[Warthogg]

When you have a standing means of slaying monsters you at some point begin to seek monsters to slay in order to justify the expense of maintaining it.


Iraq immediately comes to mind.


Wart

[O.S.O.K.]

We have been rather busy haven't we?

And my Dad would resent the exclusion of Korea. He spent two years over there.

Now, let's see an accounting of the Soviet Union/Russia's laundry list.

[insider]

War is good for the economy.

[slamfire51]

War is good for the economy.

I've always thought wars are used as population control as well.

[ATAK, Inc.]

War is good for the economy.


I've always thought wars are used as population control as well.


Not only that, but great for technological advancement as well!

Korea is always forgotten. My Dad was there for 18 months. I was there from 7/93 to 7/94, still at war!

[Richard Simmons]

Not only that, but great for technological advancement as well!

Korea is always forgotten. My Dad was there for 18 months. I was there from 7/93 to 7/94, still at war!

True. If you wanted to be accurate you'd have to list the Korean war with no end date.

[Warthogg]

True. If you wanted to be accurate you'd have to list the Korean war with no end date.

Yes.......and very recently North Korea wants to negotiate a formal ending. Not sure I understand all I don't know about that.


Wart

[Kadmos]

War is good for the economy.

No, it's really not.

[Warthogg]

Quote Originally Posted by insider View Post
War is good for the economy.


No, it's really not.

WW II worked out pretty good for the US economy. The US was heading into a much deeper depression until the war pulled us out.


Wart

[Warthogg]

Not only that, but great for technological advancement as well!

Korea is always forgotten. My Dad was there for 18 months. I was there from 7/93 to 7/94, still at war!

My cousin was killed there.


Wart

[stinker]

WW II worked out pretty good for the US economy. The US was heading into a much deeper depression until the war pulled us out.


Wart

That's a myth.

[Kadmos]

WW II worked out pretty good for the US economy. The US was heading into a much deeper depression until the war pulled us out.


Wart

Yet not so well for the 20 million who starved in Russia. Nor so well for the Poles, French, Brits, Chinese, Japenese, etc,etc.

Sorry but it's a myth, usually contries much more often go broke from war than gain.

[Warthogg]

That's a myth.

Look at the charts from that time.


Wart

[Warthogg]

Yet not so well for the 20 million who starved in Russia. Nor so well for the Poles, French, Brits, Chinese, Japenese, etc,etc.

Sorry but it's a myth, usually contries much more often go broke from war than gain.

I would say the war worked out well for every country excepting Great Britain.

The democracies took the credit and the totalitarian regimes - Germany and Russia and Japan - took the brunt of the casualties. Works for me.


Wart

[Kadmos]

I would say the war worked out well for every country excepting Great Britain.

The democracies took the credit and the totalitarian regimes - Germany and Russia and Japan - took the brunt of the casualties. Works for me.


Wart

Hate to tell you this but the US was pretty much a totalitarian regime during the war. Taxes up to 94%, "General Max" to control prices, government coupons required to purchase many common household items and building supplies.

People say that it was wartime production that got us out of the great depression, but all that really was was a huge expansion of the welfare practices the country had already started. We sent the labor force out of the country for several years, paid them, bought a huge amount of items essentially on credit while denying the people at home most of their ability to run businesses except the really rich who could monopolize government contracts.

It's not coincidence that most countries stopped making silver coins slightly after WWII, in terms of "actual money" of the time, they were broke.

WWII is supposed to stand out as this example that "war is good for the economy" and the only evidence always put out is the situation of America, and even that doesn't actually track with reality.

[O.S.O.K.]

Too bad most of the WWII vets are now deceased because if they weren't, they'd be looking for you to kick your ass for saying that they were taking welfare.

Fighting for your country and putting your ass on the line (and many dieing and getting maimed) is not "a job".

You might want to rethink what you're saying.

I think you could've made your point without that bald ass lie being included.

[Kadmos]

Too bad most of the WWII vets are now deceased because if they weren't, they'd be looking for you to kick your ass for saying that they were taking welfare.

Fighting for your country and putting your ass on the line (and many dieing and getting maimed) is not "a job".

You might want to rethink what you're saying.

I think you could've made your point without that bald ass lie being included.

I'm not saying the soldiers weren't noble or doing their duty, but the fact is military spending went from 1.6% of GDP and 17% of Federal spending in 1940 to 37% of GDP and 89% of Federal spending in 1945.

The "good economy" was a matter of heavy debt, massive government spending, and employment by the government.

From an economic standpoint, which is what we are discussing, it really was no different than the massive "public works projects" that had been going on for nearly a decade to keep Americans employed, except in that it was a huge expansion of those same principals.

I'm obviously not trying to detract from the sacrifices of our citizens, I'm merely discussing the effect of war on the economy.

In a way though you are helping to make my argument, production was up, employment was up, but the quality of life or increase in actual personal wealth was not, during the wartime years. The soldiers suffered greatly, those who were left at home suffered greatly