Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
137 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Alez from romania
Not included in the DoD budget is $23.4 billion to be spent by the Department of Energy to develop and maintain nuclear warheads
Talking about misleading statistics...
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:29 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
ya it's really hard to talk numbers wrt defense. You have covert missions, PMCs, foreign aid to Israel/Egypt/Turkey/Columbia, funding of high tech institutions like MIT, subsidization of companies like Boeing, veterans pay, loans to finance a war...
the nuke one is an obvious one, even a 10 year old would realize that it should be lumped in there with defense.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:40 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Just saw a documentary about the US entering WW1. It appears that the US hardly had any army at that time (in comparison to the huge armies in Europe). The US army in the beginning of 1917 was comparable in size to the Belgian army (and was therefore insignificant in comparison with the huge German, French and Russian armies).
It seems it was WW1 that really changed the power structure in the world. The powerful European countries had completely exhausted their powers with this devastating war, and the US had build an army from scratch in order to participate, and maintained it thereafter. If it hadn't, the Japanese may not have had a reason to attack the US in WWII at all.
And why did the US enter the war in the first place? I do not think there was a 'bad' party in WW1 (as opposed to WW2). It would not have harmed the US if Germany had won WW1, I suppose, the only effect would have been that England, their main trading partner, would be weakened. This seems hardly a big deal.
Last edited by berzerker on Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:48 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
I don't know too much about the US before WWI, I do know, however, that the US military expanded tremendously after WWII (read In the Shadow of War). As for why the US entered WWI, maybe it's b/c they didn't want England to lose, remember, by the time America had joined, the French army had mutinied, and their tactic was basically to wait for the Americans.
Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:53 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned for the Americans: do not get yourself involved in costly wars, or you'll end up spending so much resources there that you will lose your power. This is what happened to England, France and Germany back then.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:11 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned for the Americans: do not get yourself involved in costly wars, or you'll end up spending so much resources there that you will lose your power. This is what happened to England, France and Germany back then.
I think this is the lesson they learned from Vietnam.
WRT Iraq, Rumsfeld fucked everything up by guaranteeing a quick war
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:58 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
WRT Iraq, Rumsfeld fucked everything up by guaranteeing a quick war
Yeah, that's what all parties in WWI guaranteed to their public too. Home before christmas, yeah right.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:06 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Yes, but WWI wasn't that bad for America, they only joined in what, 1917?
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:46 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
Yes, but WWI wasn't that bad for America, they only joined in what, 1917?
> 100.000 deaths and > 200.000 wounded is still pretty bad (nothing compared the death tolls of the other main participants however of course, that's small comfort).
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:53 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
I'm not saying the article is wrong, but it goes against everything I have come to believe. For example it says "The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 6.8 million civilians." However, I always thought that the distinction between WWI and WWII was that in WWI the casualties were all soldiers, whereas in WWII the line between civilian and soldier was blurred.
I'm not saying the article is wrong, but it goes against everything I have come to believe. For example it says "The total number of deaths includes 9.7 million military personnel and about 6.8 million civilians." However, I always thought that the distinction between WWI and WWII was that in WWI the casualties were all soldiers, whereas in WWII the line between civilian and soldier was blurred.
757 civilian deaths, that's negligible (probably some civilian vessels sunk). But the large number of civilian deaths of other nations are puzzling indeed.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:32 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
757 civilian deaths, that's negligible (probably some civilian vessels sunk). But the large number of civilian deaths of other nations are puzzling indeed.
Maybe it involves double counting.
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:37 pm
Alez
A Winner is me!
Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 669
Location: Romania
Alez from romania does not approve of offtopic on his god damn topic. Now go back to worshiping him.
_________________ Sigs are for n00bs!
Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:46 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Alez wrote:
Now go back to worshiping him.
"back"? We said you were welcome here, now behave like a good boy before we change our mind.
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:55 pm
Alez
A Winner is me!
Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 669
Location: Romania
I'm gonna leave for a few days, going to the beach. Gonna boil under the sun like an idiot. I know you'll miss me but don't worry, i'll be back soon
_________________ Sigs are for n00bs!
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:22 pm
mihai_alexandru73
Banned
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 778
GET OUT
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:09 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
they don't have wireless on the beach?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:34 am
Alez
A Winner is me!
Joined: Apr 09, 2009
Posts: 669
Location: Romania
Even if they would, my eyes only work on laptops if no boobs are present in my area.
_________________ Sigs are for n00bs!
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:18 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Alez wrote:
Even if they would, my eyes only work on laptops if no boobs are present in my area.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 8 of 10Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
