24 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree.
Countries all typically benefit from peace. A few economies benefit from war elsewhere.
Regimes however are another matter. War is a good way to scare the population into following a leader and not focusing on other problems.
My question should have addressed the powerful in those countries.
24 Jan 17
I must say that I often get annoyed by the argument that military expenditure creates jobs and thus it is not all that bad. The reality is that any such expenditure uses money that could be better spent elsewhere and is just as capable of creating more useful jobs. Yet people seem to buy the argument hook line and sinker.
24 Jan 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Who would benefit? Those who have a strong enough military to force their will.
Who would benefit?
Who would lose?
Do the Powerful (US, Russia, China, UK, Germany, France ... et c.)
have any incentive to want want world peace when their economies
are dependant on it?
Do any existing "powers" want a United Far East?
Or a United Africa?
Who would lose? The defenseless.
24 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadA few economies benefit from war elsewhere.
Countries all typically benefit from peace. A few economies benefit from war elsewhere.
Regimes however are another matter. War is a good way to scare the population into following a leader and not focusing on other problems.
Agree to a point.
Just as our economy has seen temporarily "benefit" from debt, now that the debt is quite possibly coming to roost, there is a potential societal collapse borne out on such a system, as a war-mongering country we are facing similar inevitable destruction if we do not change course and quickly.