If the Two Fronts of the War ended today

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    If for some reason, all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were to end today, what would that mean for our economy?

    First, about 15,000 troops who are overseas are National Guard and Reserve. When they return, they will get their civilian job back. Which could mean at least 10,000 temporary employees could loose their job.
    Second, dozens of business have contracts with the military - everything from C-rations -(class I) - to uniforms (class II) ...medical supplies (VIII) to repair parts (IX). There will be a large drop in demand - which means layoffs at those companies that produce those items.

    I am not saying to keep the war going just so people will have jobs -
    But keep in mind - for every action - there is a re-action.

    Sarge
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No more American soldiers would be dying in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would be the best re-action to the action of stopping these two wars that are not in the interests of the United States to continue.

    As for the military contracts, President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. It is well past time that we heeded his warning.
     
  3. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the war on two fronts ended today...

    First, there would be an immediate call to gut our Military, which would save gobs of money while maintaining Congress' ability to buy votes with all it's many entitlement programs...

    Let's see entitlements are not a Constitutional Mandate...

    Common Defense is...

    But, what would they gut?

    And, BTW, have you noticed that the only other things they take away or the fruits of hard working middle class taxpayers????

    And, don't forget the war on the third front, The Mexican Border.

    We have insurgeant incursions by The Mexican Military, The Mexican Federal Police, Human traffickers and Drug Cartels. All of whom have fired on US Citizens!

    But, it's not PC to protect our own citizens or borders!!!!
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) A proper American foreign policy that didn't stick its nose in everybody else's business, as our founding fathers advocated, would allow our defense spending to be reduced quite a lot.

    2) If the Congress gets serious about reducing the national budget by cutting spending, as it should, there will be lots of folks getting very angry about it, including many of the Tea Party folks when the government spending they approve of is axed as well as the government spending they don't approve of.

    A serious effort to reduce the national budget will require that everyone's ox is gored.
     
  5. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,267
    Likes Received:
    619
    I would think that we would save a lot of money. Something like $300 million A DAY.

    http://costofwar.com/
     
  6. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    So the 300 mil would go to help the thousands who lost their jobs to the returning Reserves....
     
  7. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,267
    Likes Received:
    619
    I would think unemployment insurance would cover those that relinquished their jobs to the returning reserves.

    How many jobs are we talking about? Because if each person made an average of $150 a day on the job you could take care of 2 million people a day. I'm pretty sure there is not 2 million returning reservists given the fact that there is less than 200,000 troops (combined) in Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  8. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do realize that this is the flawed logic of the Keynesians for 1947 that was proven totally wrong. More soldiers home means more people available to work in productive jobs (not jobs related to building equipment that either sits around or gets destroyed). Jobs are NOT a zero-sum game. There will always be more work available to improve the standard of living of more people.

    Even if the soldiers abroad came home and still worked in the military, would we not be more secure having more defense here at home instead of being spread thinly around the world?
     
  9. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    People today have become so duped by Keynesian economics it is NOT spending and jobs (intrinsically) that increases the standard of living of society; it is the actual output of goods and services.

    If one person is paid a wage to dig a hole and another is paid to fill it back up, society becomes poorer, not richer, because the result is more money chasing fewer available goods and services.

    War is necessary as long as it is just and conservative, with the goal of actually finishing it as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Some in politics that benefit directly from war spending have falsely portrayed the notion that endless war is actually "conservative" and good for an economy, and have pulled rationale right from the Keynesian playbook. It was the leftist, Keynesian socialists following World War II who were freaking out about soldiers returning home spelling doom for the American economy. The opposite proved to be true as 1947 was one of our most prosperous years in history in terms of growth rate.

    Spending and job creation do NOT improve society unless they are directly tied to an actual increase of useful goods and services. If this were not the case, let's get some hydrogen bombs, build a safe underground bunker, and blow up most of our buildings. Then, everyone can be guaranteed the long, hard jobs of rebuilding things we need. I hope everyone here can see that this would not make us better off.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What if they don't end? Which is more realistic.

    Eventually we'll end up bankrupt with no way to protect ourselves. Other than total dependence on the "international community" and the UN.
     
  11. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, *that's* a pretty picture!

    How many true friends do we have in the UN?

    Do you need more than one hand to count them? Probably Not!

    Together, could they or would they come to our defense if we could no longer defend ourselves? Probably Not!
     
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone will start WW3, the magnetic impulse from a nuke will trash the electronic money system and the gold bugs will have won.
     
  13. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Don't sweat it. The IMF will come to our rescue.
     
    #13 poncho, Jan 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2011
  14. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well----with that "Nut" stirrin' things up in Korea---its gonna take a tad more than just 3 US Army Divisions(whats actually stationed there as of now) to "ward" him off if worse comes to worse----I haven't studied much of the Korean war of '50-'53 so I don't actually know how many divisions were deployed then at its height---so we could pull up and go there I suppose!!
     
  15. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Actually there is only one Army Division in Korea - the 2nd Inf - there are several other Combat Service and Support units.

    There are approximately 40,000 troops in Korea.

    There are approximately 52,000 troops stationed at Fort Hood Texas, which is home to 2 divisions,(1st Cav & 4th INF) a Corps HQ, 13th COSCOM, 3RD Armor Calvary Reg, among other units
     
  16. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG][​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  17. jaigner

    jaigner
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    We still like Ike.

    And this is a perfect response. I would only add that there would be no more Iraqi or Afghan citizens casualties, as well...which are far greater in number and which also bear the likeness of the Creator.

    God forgive us for not remembering this.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,131
    Likes Received:
    221
    Until the terrorists are cleansed out, there will always be fighting over there...
     

Share This Page

Loading...