It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anyone Else Think We're Building a War to Stop a Depression?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:38 PM
I've been reading around a bit about Iran and I think I'm at the point where I seriously think that the US Administration is trying to create a real "war".

Not the occupation crap like in Afgan and Iraq - but more like something from the WWII and Vietnam era.

Consider these circumstances:

  1. High Unemployment with no end in sight
  2. Economic Downturn and negative growth
  3. Governmental control battles v/s citizen's rights
  4. U.S. Govn't is outta money
  5. Growing domestic restlessness

It seems like America is getting very close to a meltdown on multiple fronts. And the best solution for that is a good old fashion war. Not a conflict like Iraq was - but a war.

Iran would most certainly bring in support from both Russia and China (although Russia is posturing out of that now Russia not Friends with Iran Anymore)

But you've got the Congress now considering a bill to "allow and support" an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran. Green Light!

You've got ships off of Costa Rica - Anti-Drug Effort???

Numerous ships passing through the Suez (far and above the normal US presence there) Military Exercises?

I don't know - it just seems like we're trying to get ready to fix our debt problems, economy woes, civil unrest, and poor Democrat political outlooks in one big operation.

Maybe it will be called "Operation Last Ditch Effort".

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:41 PM

We are already at war, in a couple of countries, and they are draining our recources.

Another war will completely devastate us.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:43 PM
Of course, the whole "war cures depression" nonsense is and has always been an illusion (even in the case of WW2).

Sure, if you wipe out enough citizens there's less demand to satisfy.

But destruction does not produce wealth. It destroys wealth. Construction of tanks and bombs by diverting human and material resources from the construction of consumer goods does not produce wealth. It produces tools by which to destroy wealth.

The whole "war cures depression" thing is patent nonsense to anyone who thinks outside the box.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by NewlyAwakened]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:45 PM
No. And here's why: WWII has often been cited as the key element that lifted us out of the Great Depression. But that can't/won't happen this time. In the '30s this country had massive industrial capacity. The Depression had idled much of it but it was there nonetheless. We re-tooled for the war and were back in business. The majority of our industrial capacity was dismantled and sent overseas long ago.

Back in the '30s we had a huge trade surplus and realtively low public debt so financing the massive WWII industrialization was doable. Today, we have just the opposite: huge public debt and a trade deficit. There is no conceivable way to fund a massive war effort. We've already borrowed our way to oblivion for the current wars. We're beyond tapped-out.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:48 PM
It may well be that a certain faction of the government (well those who control the government) is heading down this very road. However, I think there's a battle on between on between this faction and another who does not intend for that to happen.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:56 PM
I have to agree with the other responses. The world, the USA, and the manner of war itself is too different today than it was in the past when such a conflict was able to benefit an economy.

However, that's not to say that there would not be any monetary benefits to a war (another war, as was noted above) today. Unfortunately the fruits of a war would not be seen by those of us who comprise the "small people". The power folks are the ones who would see the payoff. Think Haliburton, private security forces, and other shady/sinister types of corporations who seem to gravitate to disaster and war environments - Disaster Capitalists.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:00 PM
You need a big massive war to stop a depression, like World War II.

These little wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Granada, Panama, just feed the Military Industrial Complex beast and the war profiteers in the US.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:01 PM
Hmmm. What if a new war is enough "reasoning" to allow current political leadership to pull out of Afgan and Iraq without losing any real face?

While WWII obviously saved the economy - I don't think anyone is worried about saving the economy as much as finding away to completely distract attention away from it.

Wars have a tendency to do that.

The point we are at now financially is really beyond repair. We have so many domestic obligations that I'm not sure we could even fund those by themselves.

Vietnam caused a major economic crisis in the 70's (as compared to the relative boom in the 60's).

But I sit and wonder if the current leadership - beholden as they are to an illogical doctrine - have any policy ability outside of a war to fix this.

If the U.S. were to enter a major war effort - the scale of WWII and Vietnam - they could very easily seize complete control domestically and essentially secure their own seats of power while recreating the State of the Union as they see fit.

Besides - we have a lot of Army being unused. The people that say our military is already strained don't look at the actual war capacity of our forces.

We have the units, resources, equipment, and funds to fight two major conflicts at once. I'm talking clean out the bases type wars, not just a couple of reserve units being activated for rotational duty.

We still operate a military ready for a full scale war against the USSR and able to manage any other minor conflicts at the same time.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:11 PM
Wars dont stop depressions, they create them in the long run becasue they are cause by debt and the inability to repay. Wars are used to allow avoiding repayment of loans and the piling on of more. WW2 didnt solve the depression it simply allowed us to finally ignore the debt created before and then after to fight it. That's only a small part of the debt we have to this day, by the way we've lost fear of being indebted, because of the fallacy of sustainable cash flow economy, which is also rapidly drawing to a close, bye bye cashflow, hello foreign repo men.
Anyone that thinks wars solve depressions is using very superficial and ultimately very flawed logic.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Blanca Rose

I think that whether a war may be economically or politically attractive to a government is quite a complex issue.

For instance, poor, devastated by sanctions, and nearing the natural end of a leadership/vision, North Korea may find that a full scale war, or even a staged set of actions followed by a pre-determined surrender or coup/transfer of leadership could be in their interests, as it could open up access to vast sums in the form of foreign aid and rebuilding, very attractive for an elite that may be begining to smell weakness in their aging dictator - they may hope to follow the Germany/Japan path to prosperity?

Now, the USA is a different matter, as you infer, I think some kinds of engagement could do nothing than accelerate the current economic decline - perhaps another smallish scale debacle with a single nation, where the USA finds itself isolated or with a disproportionate share of the burden.

However, different kinds of engagement, with carefully chosen theatres, networks of adversaries and allies, probably implying larger scales, could provide a game changing move for the USA, presenting all kinds of options such as: drafting, rationing, intervening in the progress of other competing nations, obtaining 'treasure' in the form of foreign resources that would not be an option after the decline in economic terms....all kinds of things.

I am very worried that we are looking at a USA that may decide it is now under pressure to 'utilise' its military might/lead/prowess as some form of desperate attempt/reaction to both its own decline and the rise in power of other nations.

If for example the USA economy carries on as is, there is a strong possibility that we could see a chain of significant negative steps for the economy (bad data, increased deferrals, loss of default reserve currency status by the US dollar, riots as per Greece - but with firearms - etc...) within the next year or so. In those circumstances choices will need to be made about military spending, as were done in Russia in the nineties, etc....

So therefore, you could argue that this may be the last year at which the US military may expect to have such a clear investment lead over other rival powers...and be seen by other powers as having that 'strength'.

However, if a world-scale conflict were instigated, under ANY pretence (perhaps excepting a foreign troop invasion of the USA) I think the rest of the world will see it as a desperate and rather selfish attempt by the USA to either stop it's own economic decline, or interfere with the recovery and possibly ascendence of other nations....although the MSM and governments may not reflect that?

I think that China, India and also Russia/Brazil...? all of them could probably wait thi sone out and have shown some signs that they may attempt to work around the USA decline. I think there are very few signs they would initiate a military offensive against the USA [edit: I don't see any invasion on the cards, thinking more of challenging USA defended outopsts/obstacles such as Taiwan/China...], at least not whilst it is still so strong, they would be best placed to wait, see a USA collapse, wait a few years and then make their moves. So I think all eyes are on the USA (military) at the moment?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by curioustype]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by gncnew

That is a very Marxist type of analysis. I can see where you are coming from. Defence spending could well lead to a mini boom as the poor idiots ( you and me) make sacrifices for the rich.

It would be a classic "J curve" economic situation.

The $64Bn dollar question is that given the fact that the anti war movement has a long memory will the sheeple buy into a WWIII scenario?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Tiger5]

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:26 PM
I suppose you could start a war with a few weak countries who have massive natural reserves then that might solve the problem.

As for a major scale war? Can't see it ever happening again. I predict more and more proxy wars and targetted attacks.

Then again stranger things have happened. I know I sound like a broken record here, but if it wasn't for Obama, the US and possibly UK would be at war with Iran right now.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:26 PM
personally I oppose this all the way, a war to cure deppresion. I think that they think it will cure it, but I also think this is where America is going to fail. This one is surely coming back to bite this country in the @$$

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by mordant1

You make some good points.

What about combining those arguments for wars to 'prop-up' or re-dress the economy, with other concerns? e.g.

- Defending international political status/power/influence/position

- Creating opportunities for prolonging order and control of the domestic population

- A motivational tool

- Creating opportunities to 'legitimately' interfere with the progression of competing nations

- Stall otherwise expected and probably adverse changes in the international order of power, trade, economics...

- Create opportunities to obtain wealth and influence via obtaining 'treasure' (overseas resources).

I am reminded tonight, of how it was commonplace a few hundred years ago for people to openly discuss military enterprises, say British navy campaigns, as routes to obtaining wealth and 'treasure'. How long though will nations be able to pretend that this, and the defence of power, is not the prime objective, rether than any moral or ethical one. In fact, I think the recent Wikileaks/Afghan data may be a step towards that?

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:43 PM
You know what really creates depression? Economists telling people how badly the economy is doing. And vice versa. It's such an illusion.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by gncnew

I definitely see a new war front on the horizon, it matters not where.
Just as long as the PTB can cull the fighting ready individuals as well as a percentage of the population is all that will matter.
As far as who wins, that matters not either as the PTB will have fall back destinations if the country of their first choice does not win.
History will repeat itself and still we will not learn.
A new history will be written using just enough factual evidence to make it seem real enough.
No big deal.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:00 PM
well my gradmother used to tell me as an early to late teens, war makes money* she learned this in her 20's living at the same time of the derpression in the 1930's. she did have a job as a bookeeper, thank god.
BUt she used to tell me about the unlucky ones, people she knew boiling leather and grass as food mostly! This was here in southwest CT. She'd say war is the way to make money for the economy, but moreso for the companys involved in making the weapons, since theyve invested in the stock market, which in turn, helps to stablilize things for us.
I persoanlly belive this same manner is still around today, ut witha greedy twist..its for selfish corporate profit mostly and any technology they can get thier greedy hands on, thats not for us, as long as its manipulated to profit off of. HEre we are 8 or 9 years later, and cant find 1 man. when we invaded nazi germany, like 8 months we would have closed in on hitler. seems after taht weve lost our motife* korean war was a disaster. they to back then, blamed the terrain on not being able to take north korea. our troops were not used to that kinda terrain, and still using obsolete weapons.
the vietnam war, was with NO disrepsect to anyone or especially the veterans, god bless you all...a joke* lyndon B johnson wanted that war, so did our government. PRobably to try its new weapons and chemicals out (aka agent orange) and to make some kinda return $$$$$ for those involved in on it. humans, are expendable, as war be it fake or true proves this. franklyl we cannot take care of ourselves, let alone eachother.
Norht vietnam, the communists, planted their flag on the south's capitol* we lost. they wanted to let it become forgotten quickly, so its not as embarrassing on thier part.
so it would seem with the birth of atomic energy and technology=control and poweer during WWII,..something happened thier, which changed the patriotic minds and eyes of our government. hell, even Eisinhower made his infamous speech before leaving the presidency in what 1957? to the public on national tv.he stated to watch the military industrial complex and not to let them grow* he couldnt say anymore, for obvisou reasons, ( aka JFK). JFK its known, wanted to pull out of vietnam, was trying to make peace with russia during the cuban missle crisis, as oppsed to our military members, wanting to invade and throw bombs all over the place.
i see afghanistan as a greedy cash register for the most part. ALL this NEW expsensive technology out thier, ( remind you all, todays tanks are based on nazi technology, the tiger tanks. tiger tanks bodys were designed witha slope* that helps to deflect any income anti tank bombs or missles. NASA's first rocket was built by a nazi sceintist) so i think wiht he capturing of nazi sceintist during and after WWII, i dunno convinced our governemnt socvialism wa better?

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:28 PM
reply to post by curioustype

I think you and I are thinking along the same lines. I would rather us not go this route, but I just wonder at the signs.

We are doing an awful lot of "saber ratteling" over here as of late, and I wonder.

I do feel that the current political leadership (Both Dem and Rep) are getting very nervous about their respective seats of power. I think there is a quickly building snow ball of civil unrest over the State of the Union...

Easiest way to stop that is a nice war (also a good way to start it...).

But it'd have to be a war where the U.S. is directly threatened. Maybe some false flags to set it off?

Iran is playing along nicely saying things like they'll react to operations to inspect their ships Swift Retaliation

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by ziggy1706

I had a hard time reading your post, but I think we pretty much agree. One thing I disagree with though is the motivations.

I think the defense contract industry exists because there is money to be made. I think the wars and conflict are not perpetuated by the private companies that make money off of them.

I think that political elite simply like to play god. I think that you are seeing egos on such an enormous scale duel each other on a regular basis.

Obama thinks VERY highly of himself and his brilliance. All these ignorant "citizens" that disagree with his ideals need to be brought into line.

Bush was certain he would finish the legacy his father had started - regardless of how that impacted the country.

The defense industry simply hangs around the dying carcass waiting for their pickings. It's like being a personal assistant to a huge fat person.

You know that they shouldn't eat anymore, but you also know they'll pay you for the next great recipe you cook up... Sad really.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by curioustype

My beliefs do not allow me to use violence for personal gain, or manipulation outside of protecting my property but they do allow use of it to defend myself or my family. If theft and violence was allowable, you'd not stand a chance.
I dont beleive in imperialism and on the other hand I dont think I can be expected or required to atone for it having occured in the past. The best system is everyone demonstrate how reliable and respectful they are of other starting now and live it, but that wont happen on this plane of existence so i'm not gonna spend much time pushing it.
The best system is one where you are left alone to provide for yourself and your family or find mutual aide based on respect and mutual voluntary assistance.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in