all 8 comments

[–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Has there been any sustained period when the USA has not been at war in the past hundred years?

[–]Jiminy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's a good point but a world war is a bigger deal than all these little proxy wars. Like USA only had like ten thousand soldiers die in iraq. Small time.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, but I do wonder if they'll actually try for a WW1/2 type war, or even a Viet Nam. All of the politicians are chicken hawks that don't want their gravy train to end by having hundreds of US citizens come home in pine boxes every week, with a movement forming to stop the war. They'd rather suck the US treasury dry for equipment purchases (and their associated kickbacks) and then let another country's kids do the bulk dying so that the outrage can fuel more equipment purchases back home.

[–]Jiminy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wars have long been used primarily to lower populations to manageable levels, or to divert young men to other countries where they can't start revolutions at home. The rich have to be careful that their wars don't spiral out of control. They have been guillotined or bayoneted in the past when things got out of control. Nuclear weapons complicate things too. They are using pandemics and shots to control the population now and that's a worldwide operation.

[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Not clear why he picked those years, random guess looks like

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. The article itself doesn't explain anything about the cycle.

[–]salvia_d 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey, you found my post :)