What is Your Rebuttal to This Person?

[inflamesdjk02]

I know it's ridiculous, but here we go ...

"Historically, wars are great for the economy in some situations. Speaking of the great depression, it was WWII that pulled us out of it.

Anyway, Iraq is an occupation. Occupations are a great way to throw away money and get nothing but the status quo in return. Don't get me wrong, status quo equals relative stability in the region, but there's a threshold where we should be saying it's no longer our responsibility and it's not worth our soldiers' lives and money.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are policing actions, and policing is significantly cheaper. Sure we have soldiers occupying Afghanistan right now, but not to the extent of Iraq. Whereas we're defending ourselves against terrorism in Iraq because we're hated there by some extremist groups, Pakistan and Afghanistan are housing the terrorists that planned 9/11 and continue to plot against us (allegedly). Call me greedy, but if we're paying billions of dollars towards a "war", I would hope we'd at least killing some guys that need to be killed.

Not that we're not killing baddies in Iraq. But we're also making it easy for them to target us in Iraq. We're the reason for the stability in the area, but we're also part of the reason for the instability. A catch 22 that's costing us a lot of money."

 

[Kotin]

I would say you are a soul-less douchebag who cares more about money than lives.

 

[Truth Warrior]

War is a racket!

 

[inflamesdjk02]

and later on ...

"Seriously though, when our leaders are seriously contemplating war, I think the economics of it are the least of their concerns. That may sound dumb, since the economy is so closely tied to our national security and well-being as a country, just think about it. You don't war because you're bored. You war because there is a serious, SERIOUS threat to national security. So serious that you're willing to put soldiers' lives at stake. You can be as cynical as you like about our politicians, but I don't think anyone, not even GWB, takes that lightly. He may be misguided in terms of the threats that we face and how serious they are, but he'll only put our soldiers' lives into play if he is personally sure that it's necessary. I believe that wholeheartedly.

And not to go super hawkish on you, but we saw what appeasement and non-interventionist isolationism got us into WWII. Now, GWB and many on the right have taken that to heart and to the other extreme (pre-emption is one of the most ridiculous policies ever, in my opinion). But wars are necessary sometimes. Mutually assured destruction, sadly, is one of the most effective security policies we've come up with in human history."

 

[TastyWheat]

We actually hit a recession near the end of WWII.

 

[erika]

My reply,

"If war is so wonderful/helpful than why is america in ashambles now?

Ever since the fed reserve/NEW DEAL was formed to fund wars, america went down hill and this is why the dollar is collapsing.

 

[metalmike06]

Ah, of course. The WWII analogy. That is so overused.

This is always the excuse for war...That if we don't fix every problem in the world, then it is always going to turn into a massive murderous empire. I'm not saying WWII in Europe was not the right decision. But keep in mind that by fighting in Europe, we then propped up Stalin (who was responsible for the murder of 3 times as many as Hitler was), and then the Soviet Union ended up being a regime which murdered dissidents even more than Hitler, and conquered and/or communized most of Asia by extreme force. Of course though today it is just more acceptable to bash fascism than communism.
"Appeasement" and "isolationism" didn't get us into WWII. A lot of it had to do with intervention in WWI/Wilsonianism, etc.
Under that same token we allowed the Soviets to come strong. We negotiated with the "Evil Empire" consistently. Was that appeasement? This guy is in the same line of thinking as Podhoretz: Every time there is a questionable foreign leader, it is 1938 again, and we are Chamberlain at Munich.

The Cold War is over. It is about time we accept that the world can operate without us playing mommy and daddy. Because when we do, especially in the middle east, it makes us much less safe.

 

[erika]

Well when you realize who was actually behind behind communism and bolshevism you begin to understand why germany was so opposed. Hitler didn't want germany's banks being taken over by these khazaric jewish extremists so he removed them. Of course russia wasn't so lucky and these khazars took over russia. So when hitler kicked them out, the response came from russia and from britain whos banks were owned by another khazaric jewish extremist named rothschild.

Once again it comes down to the banks. He who owns the banks, funds the wars and control.

Oh and marxism is fascist too. It's just the lefts version of fascism.