My guess as to why it didn't:inanna wrote:hmmm... ya know WW2 is what pulled america out of the great depression. Actually during wartime the economy usually booms. Production is increased cuz suddenly there is a need for war planes and bombs. Employement is increased because somebody has to make those suckers. yada yada yada. The worker has an increase in salary which equals an in increase in spending, spilling more money into the economy. It is interesting that although the econmy benefited from us dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians, it didn't pull us out of this hump. Technically speaking it should have down much more than that.
Before Pearl Harbor and WWII, the US actually had a tiny military, with rather outdated equipment, and not a whole lot of that even. During wargames in the South, when we prepared to enter the fray, pickup trucks were designated as tanks, for instance, and machine guns were just the standard issue bolt-action Springfield (circa 1903) rifles with pie tins attached. Not a great force.
However, since we were entering war, military production ramped up, as you mentioned. We needed planes, tanks, jeeps, hundreds of thousands of the semi-automatic Garand rifles, and tons of other support gear. The government and military went on a buying bonanza for goods, and they needed a lot of them because of the two front war, and because there is no such thing as a cruise missile or precision targetting, so lots planes and bombs are needed. WWII, besides helping to pull the US out of the Depression, also marked the beginning of our massive military and the march to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned about.
Anyhow, contrast the "filling the pantry" state of the military in WWII to now. The pantry isn't just full, it's overflowing. We have plenty of rifles to go around, and billions of rounds of ammunition for them. We play war games with modified real equipment. We have self-propelled missiles that can hit our big targets for us, instead of requiring a piloted bomber to do a run and waste explosives and possibly a whole plane.
Essentially, we have little need at this time to crank out military goods on a WWII level again, meaning no massive military spending that could jumpstart the economy.
The UN can huff and puff and say "No" all it wants, but until it gets any REAL power, besides that of constant declarations and interfering, ineffectual "peacekeeping" missions, it won't tell the US, or ANYBODY, what to do. None of the other countries are willing or able to stand up to the US, because to do so hurts them.inanna wrote:However, such a statement also shows just how stupid we were to go at this without UN approoval. Yes, oil is a world market. World Market. Which means that the UN should have had a say in such a war because it directly effects other countries economies. Silly US, just to arrogant and ego-centric to understand the word NO.
Does it do us any good to go cowboy around the world? Of course not. But to suggest that the UN has some magic power, or needs to be respected is, sadly, rather laughable in my opinion. It's up to our President to play nice, and he's not going the best job at it (which sucks).
Blair, in my opinion, won't be re-elected. This Iraq war (and his draconian firearms legislation, among other things), will probably guarantee someone else to be in his seat. Granted, I'm not the most up to date on British politics, but that's my guess.inanna wrote:However, when I heard Blair I was like damn now that is how a politician is suppose to sound. Oh well, that is what you get for believing forged intelligence... Ah a slice of Americana.
.