[quote]. Is the American the first benevolent superpower?..[/quote]

POSTED BY: Malbadinlatin
UPDATED: Monday, June 8, 2026 22:46
VIEWED: 10787
PAGE 7 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

MAZAEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:59 PM

Quote:
Romans, Greeks, Ottomans, The Hapsburgs, The British, The Japanese, The Germans...who'd I leave out?

Anywho, They all invaded countries. Most of the populations at the time were convinced that their leaders did it for just reasons. The people felt increased national pride and some profited. Why wouldn't the citizens on average think everything is just fine, and aren't we nice for making the world more secure

That is an interesting point you make that Germany and Japan's population was convinced their leader invaded other countries for just reasons. Germany issued a lot of propoganda and untruths and used people's insecurities about Jewish people to convince the population to support them.

People would still be convinced that Germany had invaded other countries for just reasons if Germany had not won the war. History would have written that Hitler was the ideal leader. People believe what their told by propaganda.

Germany sunk an American passenger ship and attacked the allies of America. So America decided to defended itself and it's allies and go into war with the German government. Terrorists attacked America with plane bombs so America decided to defend themselves by getting into a war with Afganistan.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
Germany sunk an American passenger ship and attacked the allies of America. So America decided to defended itself and it's allies and go into war with the German government.

One thing, Japan attacked America, and although you're right Germany did attack American interests America didn't declare war on Germany. America declared war on Japan, Germany's axis ally at the time, and Germany responded by declaring war on America.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MAZAEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:40 PM

It is likely you are right on America attacking Japan and then Germany before Germany and America were at war.

CITIZEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:28 PM

It's quite an interesting set of events I think. From the general isolationist attitude which included bills banning logistical aid to combatants of the early conflicts to to the almost 'war fever' after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour that FDR focused on Germany, declaring that Germany had to be the initial focus of the war, crushing the Nazi's on multiple fronts.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MALBADINLATIN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:

That is an interesting point you make that Germany and Japan's population was convinced their leader invaded other countries for just reasons. Germany issued a lot of propoganda and untruths and used people's insecurities about Jewish people to convince the population to support them.

Thats what bugs me about hawkish conservatives or flaming liberals believing these cable news shows and blogs. How can they ever DISCOVER if they are wrong?

Quote:
People would still be convinced that Germany had invaded other countries for just reasons if Germany had not won the war. History would have written that Hitler was the ideal leader. People believe what their told by propaganda.

So America decided to defended itself and it's allies and go into war with the German government. Terrorists attacked America with plane bombs so America decided to defend themselves by getting into a war with Afganistan

Thats all true, saudi arabian terrorists attacked on 911, and they had no connection with Saddam Hussein. This war is all about oil, not about giving democracy to the Iraqii people.

"You can believe your eyes...or you can believe me." -Groucho Marx

MAZAEN

Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:59 PM

Quote:
This war is all about oil

It is much cheaper for America to use the war expenditure money to purchase oil than invade Iraq to obtain oil. The cost of war in Iraq has been $91 billion each year. The oil profits made in Iraq are less than it costs the Americans to stay in Iraq. Iraqis are making a total gross profit of $84315000000 ($84 billion)a year in Iraq. The cost of war in Iraq each year averages $91849575000 ($91 billion). America has not invaded Iraq for oil.

These figures aren't even including the other costs not included in the war budget. It costs approximately $450,000 (AUS) to raise each child who becomes a soldier who dies in war. Another cost of soldiers is training costs. The average cost of training a soldier or officer in UK has been recorded on a website below as over £16,000(UK).

You could also find your own information and do these calculations yourself. There are lots of statistics available on reputable websites on the internet.

I made the calculations below.
US$66/barrel price oil

$84315000000 a year $84 billion a year total gross profit of oil a year in Iraq
cost of war in Iraq over 4 years: $337398300000 ($337 billion)
cost of war in Iraq over 1 year $91849575000 is ($91 billion)

The figures for the cost of raising the children that grow up and serve their country are large. 3133 soldiers, who were once children, died in Iraq. Each of these children costed $450,000(AU) to raise. The 3133 children combined costed $1409850000(AU) ($1.4 billion)to raise. These statistics for raising a child can be found at:
http://www.smartpopulation.org/parenting/statistics.html

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 18, 2007 11:01 AM

Well the costings don't prove motive, the American Administration thought (or at least that's what they said, so they either thought it or it was a lie) that Iraq would be like a rerun of the Liberation of France in World War II complete with dancing in the streets, Laurels and Hardy handshakes, and nubile Iraqi women greeting the brave men in their own particular Idiom. As it turns out Iraq does in many ways reflect World War II France, but certainly not it's liberation.

Point is I don't think we can use costings for the war as opposed to profits from same as proof of pre war motive, since the pre war planners likely thought it wouldn't be this expensive to perpetrate the post war occupation. There's also the fact that the people making money from the Oil are not the same people paying for the venture. There are some people growing very rich out of the War in Iraq.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
Germany sunk an American passenger ship and attacked the allies of America. So America decided to defended itself and it's allies and go into war with the German government.
One thing, Japan attacked America, and although you're right Germany did attack American interests America didn't declare war on Germany. America declared war on Japan, Germany's axis ally at the time, and Germany responded by declaring war on America.

Depends on which war he was talking about. If he was talking about WWI and refering to the RMS Lusitania, he's almost correct. The RMS Lusitania was a British ocean liner and when a German submarine fired on it without warning, it galvanized the US' stance against Gemany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. It was one of the events that lead to the US entering the war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Depends on which war he was talking about. If he was talking about WWI and refering to the RMS Lusitania, he's almost correct. The RMS Lusitania was a British ocean liner and when a German submarine fired on it without warning, it galvanized the US' stance against Gemany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. It was one of the events that lead to the US entering the war.

You're absolutely right about the First World War, but if you look at the statements in context of the overall post and what it was replying too I think it's clear that the subject was the Second World War.

Not in the least the line preceding that paragraph:

Quote:
Originally posted by Mazaen:
History would have written that Hitler was the ideal leader. People believe what their told by propaganda.

(emphasis added)

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BABYWITHTHEPOWER

Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:19 PM

I see that now, missed it my first time through. My appologies. In that case, what you said was dead on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE