It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stinkelbaum
which iraq war are you talking about?
saddam would still control kuwait if not for the first war.
oil prices tumbled after the second, iraq was under embargo, only russia was getting their oil.
with saddam still alive, its unlikely daesh would have any ground however.
the balkans would still be at war, the ethnic cleansing would probably have finished but, at the cost of how many lives?
if america did not enter vietnam, their civil war would have escalated to cambodian levels of genocide.
if south korea laid down arms at the DMZ, north korea would more than likely attack, again.
america and the UN have nobody posted their, currently.
the idea that north koreans would attempt to overthrow their leader is laughable.
afghanistan, nobody knows, pretty much all land taken by the UN has fallen back to the taliban, while a weak government tries to rule.
with bin laden still alive, likelihood would be more terror attacks on the west.
originally posted by: and14263
War = money.
America would be poorer. Or should I say those who run businesses which benefit from war would be poorer. Less rich.
originally posted by: argentus
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
What I do absolutely agree with (as I perceive from your post) is that the U.S. should move toward a more isolationist policy, except where trade and trade agreements are concerned. I think most countries might benefit from an internal policy of taking care of their own FIRST, and foreign policies second. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't have poor, needy, starving citizens that can not help themselves. There may be some, however I am not aware of any country that doesn't need to rebuild its infrastructure in lieu of sending billions of [insert currency] abroad.