nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
All countries are at fault, nothing done is really justifiable.
I think the Middle East has been dragged into petty squabbling between super powers (because they can't hit each other can they, there would be no where to go home to) Yep just like the Falklands I think this is about oil and trade.
I think the Middle East has been dragged into petty squabbling between super powers (because they can't hit each other can they, there would be no where to go home to) Yep just like the Falklands I think this is about oil and trade.
DeletedUser
you do know that the first 2 are basicly the same thing right
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_shield.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
DeletedUser
whatever
nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
DeletedUser
To those whom don't trust wikipedia, they do offer sources.
On the military budget page, one of these sources were:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
Notice the .gov?
If I felt strongly enough about it, I'd take my time and check it up, but I deem that wiki article fairly accurate.
On the military budget page, one of these sources were:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/defense.pdf
Notice the .gov?
If I felt strongly enough about it, I'd take my time and check it up, but I deem that wiki article fairly accurate.
DeletedUser
So you had golden pens or what?
Better equipment doesn't mean better education.
This might work later at university in a laboratory. When you do your own PCRs and NMRs it's certainly more helpful to understand what it is about, than solely reading in a book how it works in theory.
But in school you should simply learn how to read and write first, then use your brain by analyzing texts, e.g. That won't need expensive high-end equipment, but a piece of paper with some ink on it. The costly factor are the persons who teach you how to get along with a text and what to do with it. They need a proper schooling before they are able to explain that knowledge to anyone else.
DeletedUser
"all wars are civil wars because all men are brothers"(hey my brothers !)
DeletedUser
First sensible thing I've seen you post, and I must admit, that one was rather good.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser8950
That is a good post. Just repped ya.
DeletedUser
Thank you darknoon and J R
DeletedUser
Peace through war?
Crimean War + Russo-Turkish War --> WW1 --> WW2 + Russian Civil War --> Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War, The Cold War --> Iraq + Afghanistan --> the future...
I have to say: it doesn't look good.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser8950
World war 1 was meant to be the "war to end all wars" and that didn't bring peace. Just shows, war never brings real peace.
DeletedUser
after that League of Nations if formed = WW2 = UNO = Cold war,vitenam war,Gulf war .....
hmy:DeletedUser
You can't say that each of those wars cause more war. Yes WWI did in a large part cause WWII, but so did Hitler, as well as global depression. And since then neither Germany, nor Japan have been deeply involved in any major conflict.
And the cold war was just fear of war. That should be proof against not for. The only action was in espionage... and in little school children hiding under desks to survive a nuclear explosion.
(man I now want a hiding under desk smiley)
Not to mention that war can be good... it keeps population in check. (Don't bother flaming me on this I know the implications of what I said.) Back in ancient times, it helped to save from overpopulation which causes starvation, and crime increases. *edit* (also before you flame me for this one read my sig... note, it wasn't made for this thread I've had it like that for a little while.)
Hmm I seem to have forgotten what my last point was... ooo there it is.
Military spending, and enlarging is not a bad thing. There are many people who manage to "make something of themselves" and get opportunities they otherwise couldn't have by joining the military. And really war is always going to happen, this thread can even be viewed as proof, as well as others on this forum, because people disagree, loose there tempers, and get emotional. Which causes fights and eventually violence if taken far enough. And just look at the game if you want more proof. Are duelers and soldiers necessary? No, but look at how many there are. Yes it is just a game, but it can also be viewed as an experiment into human interaction.
And the cold war was just fear of war. That should be proof against not for. The only action was in espionage... and in little school children hiding under desks to survive a nuclear explosion.
(man I now want a hiding under desk smiley) Not to mention that war can be good... it keeps population in check. (Don't bother flaming me on this I know the implications of what I said.) Back in ancient times, it helped to save from overpopulation which causes starvation, and crime increases. *edit* (also before you flame me for this one read my sig... note, it wasn't made for this thread I've had it like that for a little while.)
Hmm I seem to have forgotten what my last point was... ooo there it is.
Military spending, and enlarging is not a bad thing. There are many people who manage to "make something of themselves" and get opportunities they otherwise couldn't have by joining the military. And really war is always going to happen, this thread can even be viewed as proof, as well as others on this forum, because people disagree, loose there tempers, and get emotional. Which causes fights and eventually violence if taken far enough. And just look at the game if you want more proof. Are duelers and soldiers necessary? No, but look at how many there are. Yes it is just a game, but it can also be viewed as an experiment into human interaction.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Well Oisin we did our best. Certainly the last 100 years.
I understand your point.
I understand your point.
DeletedUser
@LoneWolfHero:
Have The USA, England and the USSR been 'deeply involved in many major conflicts' after WWII?
As for the Cold War... thta was fought by proxy in several places, and some of the conflicts we see today are remnants of that time.
Have The USA, England and the USSR been 'deeply involved in many major conflicts' after WWII?
As for the Cold War... thta was fought by proxy in several places, and some of the conflicts we see today are remnants of that time.
DeletedUser
some common conflicts
French vs British (French knights vs British Longbows)
Christians vs Muslims (crusaders vs jihads)
Europeans vs Americans and Asia(there colonies)
French vs British (French knights vs British Longbows)
Christians vs Muslims (crusaders vs jihads)
Europeans vs Americans and Asia(there colonies)
DeletedUser
I consider Iraqi Freedom US major involvement... the only reason that the majority ended so quickly was that it was a blitz of major power against unprepared minor power... But that may just be my opinion.
And you are correct about the proxy conflicts, I wasn't thinking about that. And yes they did cause problems, largely in part for the US...
And you are correct about the proxy conflicts, I wasn't thinking about that. And yes they did cause problems, largely in part for the US...