4 ms·
> the First World War was an massive exercise in proving that nothing that could be gained from a major power war would be worth the misery And yet the "war on
by FirmwareBurner 3y ago
> the First World War was an massive exercise in proving that nothing that could be gained from a major power war would be worth the misery
And yet the "war on terror" happened. US companies gained a lot from that even if the average taxpayer didn't.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> yet the "war on terror" happened. US companies gained a lot from that even if the average taxpayer didn't The War on Terror, and invasion of Iraq, were massive American policy failures. (The article I quoted says as much.) Had Xi not become a dictator and Putin not invaded Crimea and then the rest of Ukraine, American hegemony would be on a downturn as a result of those fumbles.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago>The War on Terror, and invasion of Iraq, were massive American policy failures. Not if you ask Halliburton
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Not if you ask Halliburton The stockholders who have seen a third against since 2006? You’re dragging a red herring. In the past, conquest was popular because it made the conqueror as a whole rich. Today, you’re limited to scratching out whatabouts with one-off and dated examples like Halliburton. The circle of net beneficiaries rivals that of botched aid operations. Industry has made war, proper war, almost universally stupid for advanced societies.
- inglor_cz 3y agoIn every war, someone gains something, but War on Terror was detrimental to the US as a whole, and the American population understands that - which is why the hawks are really unpopular right now. The defeat of H.C. in 2016 can at least partly be explained by the fact that she was considered a foreign policy hawk. Compare this to wars of Ancient Rome which were actually popular, because they brought home visible wealth.