| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain17983 Posts
On April 22 2015 22:25 Simberto wrote: We tried it twice. Wasn't fun. So Germany stopped starting world wars, and apparently noone else wants to step up. Syria is really really trying, though. | ||
|
fancyClown
65 Posts
Also, war is good for the economy. That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy. Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote: I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons. Also, war is good for the economy. That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy. Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. The problem isn't nukes, the problems are alliances. The first world war was literally a fluke. One guy getting mad at another guy, one friend getting called, then another friend, suddenly germans are shooting americans and neither side was really sure why. The second world war was also a fluke--but different. It wasn't like "Oh let me and my allies line up over here, and you and your allies line up over there" kind of deal. But instead it was one country invading like 2-3 places. Friends getting called in to help--and suddenly a backstab later and everyone's shitting on Poland. What am I trying to say? The last several wars we've had have been a single primary combatant being given support troops, but not a mutual active engagement. For example, when the US went to war against Afghanistan. Other countries, like the UK or the Philippines, or wherever sent in support troops, fighting troops, etc... but they themselves didn't really "wage war" against Afghanistan. The UK didn't say "Oi, Merika wanna go at them yokels ova there? Let's av it then!" and then send the entire military might of the British forces into the gulf. They were more like "Heres a division or two, let me know if you need tea" This pussy ass alliances where one country does most of the work and the other country gets to send minimal support is the reason we don't have world wars. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Sycamore
204 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 23 2015 00:04 ThomasjServo wrote: I don't think Mustache levels are high enough for global conflict. You look at the other ones and at least two of major world players had facial hair, more than that in the first. Yeah this comment is on point. Mustache is everything. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 23 2015 04:03 Sycamore wrote: Why do girls start a talk with me on a theme-based community/dating site when they live..450 kilkometers away from me? Because they want to see how dedicated you are to seeing them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23222 Posts
On April 23 2015 04:03 Sycamore wrote: Why do girls start a talk with me on a theme-based community/dating site when they live..450 kilkometers away from me? Because they want attention with little or none of the responsibility that an in person relationship entails? Also sometimes they have family in the area or something and they want to line up someone to see when they get there. The last common one that comes to mind is that they live in a shitty podunk town and no one in it interests them that way so they can only look online. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 22 2015 22:23 fancyClown wrote: What is the reason we do not have World Wars anymore? World wars are sooo 20:th century. We are too hipster for that kind of mainstream things now. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6209 Posts
On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote: I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons. Also, war is good for the economy. That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy. Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. War is pretty devastating for your economy. A reason why Russia won't invade easter Ukraine is that they're already reaching their financial limit by taking Crimea. It's just too damn expensive nowadays. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
All the Syrian government is trying to do is to regain control of the area it was originally controlling. The current area of conflict in the middle east is really small compared to world wars, it's not even close. On April 23 2015 00:10 Thieving Magpie wrote: World wars are never good for the global economy. Both wars were good for USA, but USA ecnomy is not the global economy. And USA benefitted because of the sheer destruction done to the economic infrastructure of Europe which were the main dominant economic powers before the wars.The problem isn't nukes, the problems are alliances. The first world war was literally a fluke. One guy getting mad at another guy, one friend getting called, then another friend, suddenly germans are shooting americans and neither side was really sure why. The second world war was also a fluke--but different. It wasn't like "Oh let me and my allies line up over here, and you and your allies line up over there" kind of deal. But instead it was one country invading like 2-3 places. Friends getting called in to help--and suddenly a backstab later and everyone's shitting on Poland. What am I trying to say? The last several wars we've had have been a single primary combatant being given support troops, but not a mutual active engagement. For example, when the US went to war against Afghanistan. Other countries, like the UK or the Philippines, or wherever sent in support troops, fighting troops, etc... but they themselves didn't really "wage war" against Afghanistan. The UK didn't say "Oi, Merika wanna go at them yokels ova there? Let's av it then!" and then send the entire military might of the British forces into the gulf. They were more like "Heres a division or two, let me know if you need tea" This pussy ass alliances where one country does most of the work and the other country gets to send minimal support is the reason we don't have world wars. Neither World Wars were flukes. They were the end result of many factors, mostly that of an attempt on an expansion of power and resistance against. There were wars before ww1 that essentially stretched across continents, the only real difference was scale and improvement in logistics to travel the distances involved. As for US war against Afghanistan, it was a one sided slaughter, such that it could hardly be called a war. USA nor UK sent their entire military might, they simply didn't need to when the Afghan government in control at the time (remember them? No one does anymore!) didn't even have the ability to shoot down planes, not to mention the absolute military capability and population differences. The afghan wasn't a world war, because it was a localised conflict. Now if somehow Russia, China, Japan had gotten involved at the same time trying to exert control and opposing each other ala WW2 then you can call it a world war, though it will probably end with the entire world as an irradiated husk. Simply put, there hasn't been any world wars recently because war is bad, nukes are even worse, and the only countries capable of waging a global war or have substantial amounts of land around the world to make a world war a global war all have nuclear weapons. Except Canada. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On April 23 2015 08:50 RvB wrote: War is pretty devastating for your economy. A reason why Russia won't invade easter Ukraine is that they're already reaching their financial limit by taking Crimea. It's just too damn expensive nowadays. War is good for your economy has a pretty large asterisk next to it. It assumes a many thing about your economy. Russia isn't poised in such a way that outright war would benefit the economy. | ||
|
Chimpalimp
United States1135 Posts
On April 23 2015 08:50 RvB wrote: War is pretty devastating for your economy. A reason why Russia won't invade easter Ukraine is that they're already reaching their financial limit by taking Crimea. It's just too damn expensive nowadays. War is good for some countries' economies but bad for others. For example: WWII was shit for French and German economies but it was fantastic for America's economy. What I'm getting at here is that the countries that are 100% involved and committed to a war get their economies wrecked. However, if you are a bystander who is selling weapons and resources to those committed countries, you make bank (America in WWII). So if you want to profit off war, you stay a bit back and make money off those in desperate need of resources. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 23 2015 09:21 Chimpalimp wrote: War is good for some countries' economies but bad for others. For example: WWII was shit for French and German economies but it was fantastic for America's economy. What I'm getting at here is that the countries that are 100% involved and committed to a war get their economies wrecked. However, if you are a bystander who is selling weapons and resources to those committed countries, you make bank (America in WWII). So if you want to profit off war, you stay a bit back and make money off those in desperate need of resources. I think war is good for the economy of those that are not affected by the war.  | ||
|
fancyClown
65 Posts
See WW2 Economic Expansion | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
If something is small, like for example the economy of a country that consists mostly of rubble, it is quite easy to grow that by a proportionally large amount. Take some of the rubble and turn it into a house, INSTANT economy. | ||
|
fancyClown
65 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Germany Granted, WW1 didn't have such a great impact on Germany's economy. | ||
|
VelJa
France1109 Posts
You are fucking missing one point. War is good/bad for economy ok ok (look for plan marshall in google) Don't forget all the life taken, the city destroyed, and all this shit. WW modified our POV on a lot of thing. Stop being autistic and thinking only about the $$$ | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 468mouzHeroMarine  397mcanning 203UpATreeSC 95EmSc Tv  29MindelVK 28ForJumy  26SteadfastSC  0Mini Dota 2 1010Barracks  708EffOrt  655Larva 484yabsab 181Mind 142Snow 93Killer 78Dewaltoss 75TY 61[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
