Should the non-wealthy have children?

Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Should the non-wealthy have children?

Author

Message

Kapkao
Unregistered

Post: #1

RE: Should the non-wealthy have children?

skyblue1 Wrote:

Crazychavo Wrote:

skyblue1 Wrote:

Crazychavo Wrote:

142857 Wrote:

Luke Mauser Wrote:

The fact is that if we didn't spend so much on weapons, there'd be more money to spend on other things wtithout needing to borrow it. The wealthy can easily afford to provide for the education of the masses.
And are you seriously saying there's an argument against the state provision of education? Wherever you went to school, you clearly weren't taught a great deal of human empathy, or indeed economic logic.

The world needs the US as a superpower. I would be very nervous if China an Russia were the 2strongest military powers on the planet. Blowing $$$$$ and thousands of lives on pointless foreign wars I can certainly agree that you could do without.

I don't see Russia and China going on a spree of aggressive wars and threatening the entire world. They are powerful countries why can't we just respect that and live in harmony, they will not tolerate as much from us as smaller less powerful countries because they don't have to. While I wish Iran wasn't trying to develop a nuclear weapon I don't really blame them. Being from a country where the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and self defense and toughness are praised as virtues above all others I get it. They don't want to be bullied around by countries like the US or Israel or any other country with nuclear weapons. The reason the US developed the bomb was to try to coerce the world into obedience. Why do you think the Soviet Union and then China wanted one too? The sad thing is as we develop more and more weapons and more and more technology that is harmful to the planet other countries feel forced to keep up in order to avoid the fate that Latin America and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan have been through. Every empire that has tried to conquer the world has failed. The American Empire will be no exception. Before now however there weren't the weapons available to destroy the world now there are and its very frightening will the sociopaths running this empire be willing to destroy the world rather than live in one where the US isn't on top.

The reason the US developed the bomb, was to end the war in the Pacific, without having to invade Japan itself. This would have cost over one hundred thousand more American lives and over a million more Japanese

That is simply not true. Why did we need to invade Japan when we were quite close to eliminating their entire navy and airforce, just for the ego satisfaction of a unconditional surrender? A few weeks before the bomb was dropped the Soviet Union and Mongolia declared war on Japan and their armies liberated most of China almost without a fight. It's a myth that no Japanese soldier were willing to surrender. Had the war not suddenly ended because of the dropping of the bomb. its likely that US backed governments would never had come to be in Vietnam or Korea or Taiwan and for whatever reason America really wanted to control those countries. The strength of the Soviet land army with more than 20 million troops and superior tanks to ours at the time were considered a threat so we had to show off our new super weapon to them. I met a Chinese person who thought the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justifed because of the terrible things the Japanese Empire had done. The fact is though about a quarter of the victims of the bombing were Chinese workers taken as slaves. Bombs can't tell the difference between "good guys" "bad guys" and the innocent.

you need to catch up on your history of WWII

You, friend... did what I tried to do with less energy. I salut thee.

Would your family care for some wine?

02-15-2012 09:30 PM