I hate Wars

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"]

So do I.. The United States needs to bring their troops home and leave the world alone.

Nohtnym

That causes problems like conflicts. USA has alot peacekeepers.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"]

So do I.. The United States needs to bring their troops home and leave the world alone.

OG_LIP

That causes problems like conflicts. USA has alot peacekeepers.

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Most people who glorify war had never had war in their country. That's why normally europeans are against war but americans are pro war. Europeans really know what it is to have bombs dropping on top of their homes, or at least they have the memory more fresh.kuraimen

Most of the people that were alive during WWII are dead...

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] No one is pro war. It's stupid to say so. SpartanMSU

Most of the people that were alive during WWII are dead...

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

That causes problems like conflicts. USA has alot peacekeepers.

Nohtnym

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"] Sigh, because the United States has babysat so many countries, they are all dependent .. They could leave, and they will get hell for it for a while. If they acted like some countries in this world, minded their own business, and focused on their own problems in their borders, thing would get a lot better... I'm so glad I moved to Hong Kong... minds their own business.. the people here.. mind their own business.OG_LIP

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

What country is the United States at war with?

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

That causes problems like conflicts. USA has alot peacekeepers.

Nohtnym

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

USSR was in no position to do anything except lick its wounds after WW2. The few years between WW2 and the cold war the US created an international legislative body, restructured the global economy, expanded its military presence around the world and poured vast amounts of money into Europe via the military while the USSR diminished their military presence globally, pulling their troops out of many countries at the request of the US. The US was the only country that was hyper-actively reshaping the geopolitical landscape and expanding its military presence right after WW2.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"] Sigh, because the United States has babysat so many countries, they are all dependent .. They could leave, and they will get hell for it for a while. If they acted like some countries in this world, minded their own business, and focused on their own problems in their borders, thing would get a lot better... I'm so glad I moved to Hong Kong... minds their own business.. the people here.. mind their own business.OG_LIP

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

Im talking about what effect USA had on Europe after ww2. And you respond to my post about how USA got into the war. Seriously? I didnt say ANYWHERE, about how usa got into ww2.

I think south koreans are happy that they have major military force helping them.

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

SpartanMSU

What country is the United States at war with?

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"][QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

Nohtnym

Im talking about what effect USA had on Europe after ww2. And you respond to my post about how USA got into the war. Seriously? I didnt say ANYWHERE, about how usa got into ww2.

I think south koreans are happy that they have major military force helping them.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"] Sigh, because the United States has babysat so many countries, they are all dependent .. They could leave, and they will get hell for it for a while. If they acted like some countries in this world, minded their own business, and focused on their own problems in their borders, thing would get a lot better... I'm so glad I moved to Hong Kong... minds their own business.. the people here.. mind their own business.eggdog1234

Lets go to ww2. USSR and Britain would have most likely won againts nazi germany (would have taken longer). But because of USA, USSR couldnt reach their power futher into Europe.

USA is peacekeeping in many countries at the moment. South Korea for example (USA is defence force there though) - they are technically still in war with North Korea.

USSR was in no position to do anything except lick its wounds after WW2. The few years between WW2 and the cold war the US created an international legislative body, restructured the global economy, expanded its military presence around the world and poured vast amounts of money into Europe via the military while the USSR diminished their military presence globally, pulling their troops out of many countries at the request of the US. The US was the only country that was hyper-actively reshaping the geopolitical landscape and expanding its military presence right after WW2.

Britain, france, italy and germany werent licking their wounds?

USA had impact on stopping USSR reaching more Europe.

Britain, france, italy and germany werent licking their wounds?

USA had impact on stopping USSR reaching more Europe.

Nohtnym

Perhaps I wasn't clear; the USSR was not expanding they were contracting, the US was expanding not contracting.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"] The United States was involved in ww2 because that was a country threatening the world in major action, and the United States got attacked.. So yes, going to war was necessary. but these other wars right now.. no... Vietnam? no.. I love South Korea, just visited, but that's between South Korea, and North Korea... Their problem.OG_LIP

What country is the United States at war with?

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

Britain, france, italy and germany werent licking their wounds?

USA had impact on stopping USSR reaching more Europe.

eggdog1234

Perhaps I wasn't clear; the USSR was not expanding they were contracting, the US was expanding not contracting.

USA was basically wall for USSR. Now if there is no wall, doesnt mean USSR wouldnt have expanded there more (get influence over that country). And at some point pull forces back. When the countries people arent happy with goverment (which is basically influenced by Soviet union) send military forces containing riots. Like USSR did in cold war.

[QUOTE="OG_LIP"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

What country is the United States at war with?

DarkOfKnight

I'm declaring war! On stress!michael_1234576

[QUOTE="ad1x2"][QUOTE="DarkOfKnight"] Am I insane then? Because it looks like fun to me....Not lying, I am fascinated by war.DarkOfKnight

...is RAW and eating raw*'s* meat is bad for youZumaJones07

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]...is RAW and eating raw*'s* meat is bad for yourawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]...is RAW and eating raw*'s* meat is bad for youGazaAli

"I settled on a truth today that is always going to be true : I would do anything for my friends.

Which is how I think everyone in the world feels, which finally makes me understand war"

-Jeff Winger

USA was basically wall for USSR. Now if there is no wall, doesnt mean USSR wouldnt have expanded there more (get influence over that country). And at some point pull forces back. When the countries people arent happy with goverment (which is basically influenced by Soviet union) send military forces containing riots. Like USSR did in cold war.

Nohtnym

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

USA was basically wall for USSR. Now if there is no wall, doesnt mean USSR wouldnt have expanded there more (get influence over that country). And at some point pull forces back. When the countries people arent happy with goverment (which is basically influenced by Soviet union) send military forces containing riots. Like USSR did in cold war.

eggdog1234

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

[QUOTE="eggdog1234"]

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

USA was basically wall for USSR. Now if there is no wall, doesnt mean USSR wouldnt have expanded there more (get influence over that country). And at some point pull forces back. When the countries people arent happy with goverment (which is basically influenced by Soviet union) send military forces containing riots. Like USSR did in cold war.

outworld222

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

LOL, The U.S and Russia teaming up couldn't be farther from the truth.

Saying war is a man made thing is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. We might well do it bigger and better then the rest of nature but most pack animals will defend areas for food and invade other areas for food. From ape to Wolf, they all have conflct with other packs,

[QUOTE="Nohtnym"]

USA was basically wall for USSR. Now if there is no wall, doesnt mean USSR wouldnt have expanded there more (get influence over that country). And at some point pull forces back. When the countries people arent happy with goverment (which is basically influenced by Soviet union) send military forces containing riots. Like USSR did in cold war.

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

In order for there to be no more War, this planet would have to be much less populated, like it was in the Roman Days, 200 years Golden Age. Toph_Girl250

Wars = profitExoticAnimal

Eh, not really. The Iraq and Afganistan war have been extremely costly for the US. Even for the UK as well, although they didn't spend as much.

[QUOTE="Toph_Girl250"]In order for there to be no more War, this planet would have to be much less populated, like it was in the Roman Days, 200 years Golden Age. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="eggdog1234"]

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

Purdicus

The US blew an opportunity to allow the world to recover from WW2 in a communal way while remaining at the helm, but you cannot forget about Stalin and his legacy. Stalin was bat**** crazy and by the end had put his country through a hell we should all hoped is never repeated.

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]Wars = profitc0kemusheen

Eh, not really. The Iraq and Afganistan war have been extremely costly for the US. Even for the UK as well, although they didn't spend as much.

Agree and disagree. The wars have cost the US much, but the people driving the country are making out like bandits. War is a racket.

[QUOTE="outworld222"][QUOTE="eggdog1234"]

I am not sure how to respond to this post, but I still think you are missing my point. My point is that the USSR was not a threat to anyone right after WW2, they were devastated. The US was not devastated and made an array of stunning geopolitical moves that gave them hegemony over Europe. During this time the USSR pulled back and took a benign stance. This is fairly well documented but not believed because of the myth of the cold war. The myth is what you are arguing and I am trying to assert that it is false. The Peace of Illusions is a great book that goes into detail about this topic. The author, who is a member of the CATO Institute and a professor at Texas A&M in the Bush school of Government and Public service, comes to the conclusion that many of his ideological opposites do which is; the USSR was no threat and became a threat in response to very aggressive American geopolitical action and thus sparked a cold war.

Mikey132

LOL, The U.S and Russia teaming up couldn't be farther from the truth.

[QUOTE="Mikey132"]

[QUOTE="outworld222"] I agree with you! Hence the cold war (which lasted 45 years) could have been resolved in a few days. If you think about it, USA and USSR teamed up to defeat the Axis powers.outworld222

LOL, The U.S and Russia teaming up couldn't be farther from the truth.

I'm not sure what to say. Your statement has nothing to do with what I meant.

This thread has gone on for much longer than it should have.SF_KiLLaMaN

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]This thread has gone on for much longer than it should have.AussieePet

Because War has changed. It's not about nations, or ideologies. It's not even about profit, resources, or ethnicity. It's an endless series of proxy battles, fought by mercenaries and machines. War, and its vast consumption of human life, has become a rational, well-oiled business transaction. War has changed. ID-tagged soldiers carry ID-tagged weapons, use ID-tagged gear. Nanomachines inside their bodies enhance and regulate their actions. Genetic control.. Information control.. Emotion control.. Battlefield control. Everything is monitored, and kept under control. War has changed. The age of deterrence is now the age of control, averting catastrophe from weapons of mass destruction. And he who controls the battlefield, controls history. War has changed. When the battlefield is under total control, war becomes routine.Princess_Lime

You could have at least attributed this quote to whom it belongs, you thief! These are Solid Snake's words. Shame on you.

[QUOTE="AussieePet"][QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]This thread has gone on for much longer than it should have.Toph_Girl250

[QUOTE="AussieePet"][QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]This thread has gone on for much longer than it should have.Toph_Girl250