If a Nation Living on the Military-Industrial Complex (the U.S.) Doesn't Engage in War, Will It Go Under?
817361
Do the time and find out the real facts.  70 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes toward welfare and social service in the U.S.  Only the following thirty cents goes to infrastructure -- of that less than 7 percent goes to  defense and the bulk of that goes to local police , firemen etc, far from a militaristic imperialistic society.. If your thoughts held true, at the zenith of our military advantage, after WW II , when we had the atom bomb and no one else did, when we were producing an average of a battleship a day, we would not have stopped at Germany and Japan but continued on easily to world domination.
378671
The United States Military is not a defense service.  Nor is the Indian Military.  The only true Self Defense Force is the Japanese military.  They are prohibited by law to engage in any combat action other than self defense of their country.  And that may change in the next 50 years...
994977
If that was the case, all hell would break lose and there would be a huge war.\n\nThat'll never ever happen.
15565
It is a ridiculous question.  The two countries are to economically interdependent for a war to ever be waged.
864766
The question is yes the US army is readily but unfornally, US ciztiens are not prepared for the end of the world by nuclear bombs, if any country including the US launched nuclear weapons, all other counties would then fire there weapons in case of attack plus everyone loses.
745798
Even though I support the war I would have to say the answer to your question is no. There is strife in many locations in the world, but we appear to be very selective about where we take action. I do not think that it can be denied that if oil is concerned it plays a major factor. Because oil is vital to our national economy it becomes what is termed as a vital national interest. If our actions were purely altruistic then we would be taking action against genocide in Africa, but we are not. Anyone who believes that oil is not at least in part a factor is deluding themselves, but I for one have no problem with wars for oil. I drive a car, I like electricity and I use rubber and plastic products. At least wars for resources make sense where  as wars of ideology usually do not.
1092639
OMG \nFIRST it is no longer a "war". We are protecting the country from insurgents that are trying to take it over and/or trying to cause civil disruption. Peace keeping is what its called.  If it was War we would know exactly who our enemy is. \n\nSecond: We need to stay there untiil Iraq can protect itself. \nTheir government needs to work, the police need to work, the military needs to work, and there has to be enough economic infrastructure to keep it going.
618908
Economic Strength, U.S.S.R. failure.\n\nHowever both influence each other very heavily, without a military you will get invaded and all your economic capabilities will be taken from you, and if you don't have good economic base, your military will turn against you for not being paid.
631857
no. and i hope not. \n\nits not a pretty sight having wars. and its not just the headlines every country is affected.lets cross our fingers itll not happen.\n\n"WARS doesn't decide who is RIGHT, ONLY whose LEFT."
154776
Wars will be of limited extent and not worldwide.
1012406
they consist of the military industrial complex Ike warned America about!
592707
Of course there is no ight or wrong answer to this question, but I don't think that evaluation is right. Particularly in this nuclear imbalanced world created by NNPT, a country like USA that holds atomic weapons can easily defeat another country that does not have nuclear weapons (though I can't think of any country militarily strong enough that USA won't attack without nuclear weapons yet has no nuclear weapon itself). The presence of nuclear weapons can also radically affect the course of war between two nuclear countries. For example, France is militarily weaker than USA but USA may well think twice before attacking France because just before falling a desparate government may well decide to fire off those warheads.
158607
I don't think it's likely that the US will get invovled with a war with Iran. Seeing as how the US is still taking care of things in Iraq. I am pretty sure that the US will not goto war with Iran in the near future.
828255
Switzerland, but they've always kept well out of any military involvement. The don't even have much of a standing army, but every man is trained in the use of guns, and guerilla tactics.\nThe US will go the way of all empires, the bad thing about this, from a European perspective, is that they probably will drag us down with them. It is not really wealth that destroys a nation, but relentless expansionism, as the US has practised ever since its founding.
351450
Not at all.  In military and atomic power India is not a puppet like Iraq or Afgan.  Even if the 100 million people walks over, the invation will come to end.  US will not take this kind of invation decision against India or China fearing the population these countries have.
772977
I will answer in a different way, if I may.  I do not think Ideals can be spread by military force.  Woodrow Wilson once said of WWI, that the reason he was entering was because it would be "The War to end all Wars".  Well, this ideal obviously was not true, and left many Americans disillusioned.  Skip to Vietnam, to stop the spread of communism.  Communism still spread, it had to collapse on itself, it was not defeated.  Now in Iraq, to spread Democracy.  Unfortunately, I do not think it will happen.  I am glad Saddam is out of power, he killed many people, but the Iraqis will not have a democracy unless they want one.  To be honest, even the republicans are beginning to wonder what we are doing in Iraq.  And I dont know the answer, and I dont know why no one else does.
28266
You people have never heard of 'Military Industrial Complex'? War is good for the economy, so those in power (political and economic) wish to provoke war.\n\nOn deck: Iran.\nWas next, but now brushed aside, so maybe after Iran: North Korea.\nThen: Pakistan.\n\nAfter that, we will be too busy defending ourselves from the ENTIRE WORLD, who have long since grown tired of our aggression and decided to put us out of our misery.\n\nA few years back, Clinton enraged many when he stated that the US could not remain as a country for much longer (something like that) - turns out maybe he was right?