Were there any pictures?:D

.

Nope. It wouldn't be fair of me to do that...especially for those of you who might happen to be eating at the time.

Thanks for including a link too!

So the guy who forgot how to spell "deficient" is going to call some other guy an idiot. I see.

Let's see, chum; the simplest measure of the validity of what you are pleased to call "American propaganda" is probably the fact that by itself the United States is one fifth of the world economy, year in and year out. In several senses, we work. It's indisputable we work very well. We're the ones to beat, if that's possible.

UG, not trying to sound anti-american or to appear to be hero worshipping AD, but sooner or later some other country will have an economy that'll beat that of the US. It's inevitable. The past is the best way to predict the future, and history demonstrates that all world powers end up not being the world power sooner or later. Maybe that's not a bad thing though. It's a big responsibility having to be the watchdog of the world. ;)

Well put Ali. When my mum was little, the maps and globes in school still had a very imperial flavour to them (despite having already moved into the commonwealth phase of our history). In my grandfather's day, the Empire was a reality, in which he lived. Empires fall and hegemonies fade.

... and that's not including the change of the earth due to receding water levels, volcanoes, and such.

The world power eventually lets their 'big dic' mentalities promote war as if war solves all problems. Greatest nations get that way by avoiding war not justified by a 'smoking gun'. War is one of the most destructive forces to any economy.

Empires don't fall just because Empires fall. Empires fall because new leaders find solutions in war - invent one if necessary. Sometimes identified by how they spell 'deficient'. Deficient as in who suffers first - the poor and homeless. So we ask who elected these leaders. Well we better ask that question because nobody is asking it in Kenya. They don't want to be deficient of fingers and toes. You see, America's poor have it much better. After all, everything is going to be just fine since we stopped slavery. We are a world power because we have better poor people. So maybe that is the real crisis in Kenya. The voters are still slaves in voting booths. But then it seems we've missed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki calculus. Well yes. After all, it's pretty well proven that we did save lives that way, simply enough by the shortening of the war. Shorten the war and we save the Empire.

If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do. I know the above is correct because I read these exact same sentences here. God save the Empire, our glorious leader, and Kenya. Oh. That's right, This is a debate about voters in Kenya. Since a controversy does not exist, then we invent one. After all, evil must be eliminated. (I have no problem following this debate. Do you?)

I do when you take posts out of context. Thats what bugs me most about you - You are seemingly so intelligent then post this stupidity.

tw, I think you'll find most economists would refute that statement. In fact they'd suggest it's entirely on the contrary and that war fuels economy.

Does it? The American economy prospered in the late 60s and early 70s from Nam. As a result, America sold off the world's third largest economy to pay for those post-Nam debts. Sold off a large American owned overseas industrial base. Massive debts - government and trade - were created by that war. Were you trying to get a job in the 1970s when things were so good because of Nam? That *prospering* resulted in recessions, downsizing, stagflation, a lower standard of living, loss of military strength, etc throughout the late 1970s.

Yes, some economists do confuse economic activity with productive growth. They view war as good for the economy just as it did good for pre-1800 France, Britain, and Spain. Same economists also saw sub-prime loans, lower interest rates, and SIV type accounting as only good for 2000 America using the same reasoning. A 'greed is good' mentality. Funny how those economists ignore what happens once the bills come due and all that economic activity has nothing profitable to show. Some economists also believe economic growth can be created by only throwing money at things. Again, they ignore the bigger picture.

If war is so good for an economy, then making a law that requires everyone to replace their front lawns annually would also create productive economic growth. Yes it does according to the principles advoated by some economists who confuse economic activity with growth; who also believe the Fed creates economic growth by only lowering interest rates. A smarter economist knows that war only destroys economic growth just as it also harms empires. Notice how UK spent so much on WWII - and therefore became the premier world power. Must be true if that is what some economists say?

War fuels inflation or stagflation, massive debt, the selling of a country's capital to pay for those debts, long term harm to the population (especially the 25% of veterans who end up homeless), and ... well why did their economic analysis for that year ignore the massive harm and debts that appear on spread sheets many years and a decade later?

Clearly there is no difference between growth and economic activity - according to many economists with the spread sheet mentality.

By ignoring a total picture, then war is good for an economy. Tell that to the major European powers who were so much more prosperous because of and after WWI. Tell that to the Athenians who expected to become wealthy by invading Syracuse. That war meant a demise of the Athenian economy as the major economic power. But according to most of your economists, that war only resulted in a stronger Athenian economy.

The Syracuse war did result in a better Athens because the resulting economic downturn caused Athens to appreciate that wars are destructive to economies AND to listen to nay-saying critics such as Socrates.

Only bean counter types view war as good for economies because those same spread sheets don't measure the resulting long term damage. Economies that prosper most from war are ones who don't fight and who supply the warriors. How many times repeatedly have I disputed that myth from some economists? And still that myth hangs on like a Rush Limbaugh proclamation. Do not confuse economic activity with positive growth.

Did I forget to quote some of your posts in that 'stupidity'? Or should I spell it out for you: the stupidity criticized by Classicman are quotes from others in this thread. Would the word 'plagiarizing' better explain who actually posted the stupidity? Or is Classicman angry because he was not quoted? Is Classicman now mad because he did not understand he was criticizing others; again failed to grasp the context of the gag? Classicman - it required you to read and understand what was posted before making an emotional assumption. I figured you would respond with vindictive criticism and not get the gag. You tend to read only what you want to see – and you did it again.

Only slightly. And I'm overwhelmed - in a positive sense.

I think you were being insulting to the people who posted those remarks. Thats the way it read to me anyway. I'd even go so far as to use post # 132 as evidence. If it was a "gag" tw, it wasn't one of your best - not even close. I didn't think I responded vindictively either, I was more incredulous than anything.

Oh and by the way you were on a hot streak in late summer '05. Very good stuff there.