Business and Economic Reactions in Times of War

I'm ceratin of one thing. Lasting conflicts help the revenues of companies build bombs, weapons of mass destruction, tanks, airplianes ect.. That certainly can be seen as strengthening the U.S economy.

Overall though, I don't think your article is well thought out. Realize that recesions are normal part of an economies cycle. Investors will at times loose thier money. After all, there is no guarantee you get a return on your investment.

Also realize, to a great extent wars themselfs are planed and fought for economic reasons, not in spite them. The current "war on terrorism" being waged by the U.S. can be seen as attempt for U.S. to establish global hegemony. And there is evidence that the action in Afghanistan, and the pending action in Iraq, was planed well in advance of the formal attack on World Trade Centers and Pentagon.

Finally, perhaps this not the proper forum for you to complain about your poor investments. I don't see any thing related to development of free peoples or free software in these rantings.

I take it you wouldn't have this perspective if you weren't a resident of the sole remaining superpower, which has a more powerful military than the rest of the world combined.

Do you think the current differences between India and Pakistan over Kasmir should be decided by war? Do you think that the U.S. superpower should weigh in on one side or the other to "bring resolution quickly"?

Civilization has come a long way in developing the rule of law to resolve conflicts. Yes it may make some issues take a long time to resolve. However, I believe the concept of "respect for human rights" should be used as a guiding principle of civilization. Reverting to "the most powerful wins" (maybe I misunderstand you, but that's what you appear to be suggesting) is IMHO an incredible step backwards.

In regards to the India, Pakistan Conflict and the disputed Kashmir region I would expect America to side with India and support a quick resolution to the conflict by whichever means (diplomacy, military) can bring it the swiftest resolution with the least pain on all sides.

War is not good, nor is ongoing conflicts. They are both bad for business. Yet, historically it appears that decisive military action and victories bring resolution to conflicts that are long-term.

It's not so important to resolve conflicts for resolution's sake, than to make sure that conflicts are resolved fairly. Many oppressive governments have used "keeping peace" as a pretext for suppressing dissidents in their own countries.

As such, I'm not particularly attracted by the idea of a superpower coming in and imposing its own arbitrary will on other countries. Just as conflicts within a country should be resolved by the rule of law, international conflicts should be resolved by the rule of international law.

In the case of the India-Pakistan conflict and the Israel-Palestine conflict, I think the correct thing to do is to bring these matters up to the UN for deliberation. (Even if the UN isn't perfect, at least it has some semblance of being democratic...)

And it seems it would be easy to get a peacekeeping consensus out of the vast majority of countries who are not directly involved. And if the US would offer its political support of UN actions, things might work smoothly. I'm betting on Kofi Annan. Who do you think has more gravitas?

Therefore, as a businessman in a strong economic country it is in my best interest to find a quick and lasting military solution to world conflicts to secure my confidence and investments in the long-term markets in America.

Do you realize that you're basically saying that money is more important than life? Are you sure that's what you really believe? Please think about it.

Do you realize that ending conflicts and wars quicker than later actually saves more lives than prolonging it with diplomatic nonsense?

Where you historically aware that lasting peace has always come from decisive and crushing defeat so that the will of the enemy is gone and there is true uncoditional surrender?

Sorry, but I'll have to reply here...

Do you realize that ending conflicts and wars quicker than later actually saves more lives than prolonging it with diplomatic nonsense?

Do you want a lack of war, or do you want peace? You can never get the latter without making both parties believe they've won.

Where you historically aware that lasting peace has always come from decisive and crushing defeat so that the will of the enemy is gone and there is true uncoditional surrender?

Were you aware that, historically, the worst lasting conflicts came from decisive and crushing defeats? Amazing as it may sound, killing peoples' friends and family will not neccessarily destroy their will...

On a more concrete historical note, the first World War comes to mind. Ultimately, Germany was defeated by the fact that the US entered the war (to protect the war loans it had given to Great Britain and France, among other things). Germany had to accept sole responsibility for the outbreak of WW1 (which is historically correct, as far as I know, but wasn't particularly popular, neccessarily), it was forced to accept a "peace" that was much to its disadvantage (practically no standing army, massive amounts of reparations having to be paid etc.). You could call that a pretty crushing defeat, but that wasn't quite the end of the story.

You answered your own puzzle.

You said germany wasn't crushed after WWI and thus came WWII.

You proved my point the only lasting peace is when the enemy is crushed not simply congenial surrender or as you say 'when both sides are happy.' That leads no where as you pointed out.

Only after a complete and crushing defeat did germany see our viewpoint that facism and thier death cult of genocide was bad and a democractic capitalism of tolerance, independence, and freedom is good.

The will of the enemy to attack you must be defeated for lasting peace no happy dance will make that happen on any planet. The sense of victory or success for a enemies actions is more powerful that their golas. Thats why so many Iraqis in the Gulr war surrendered to TV camera crews, that's why psy ops is so powerful in the field.

The root of war is success or at least the concept of your actions leading somewhere or accomplishing something Thats why people start wars and fight to gain or take away something from someone else.

When you realize it isn't and it never will, in other words that war is futile, the fight and conflict usually ends. And as I previously said a couple times here, via history we can see clearly how the above only happens through a crushing defeat which takes away the enemies will to continue battle.

The japanese kamikaze mentallity had to be defeated by a unconditional surrender. The decision to use the A-bomb was in the interest of saving a far more greater number of lives on both sides.

I'm sorry if you cant understand that plain reality, its hard to further explain beyond the obvious facts.

This lasting peace you speak of doesn't exist. The United States has been in a continual state of war with one country or another for the past 100 years. The Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Bosnia, Cuba, Guatemala, Columbia, Indonesia, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan, ...is there a country that the United States hasn't meddled with? Has there been a single decade in the 20th century where the United States wasn't sending its soldiers abroad? And you call this lasting peace?

PS: Listen to what people like Noam Chomsky have to say about the true role of the United States in these conflicts, and I promise you, you will be ashamed of your government.

Noam Chomsky is a secular Facists or leftists number 1.

The US 'medling' as you call it has saved millions of lives that were being destroyed and going unchecked by the rest of the complacement 'sit back and let it happen' world you embrace.

Charity, good will, lending a helping hand, helping you fellow man from violence are not negative traits. Focus on the positives and not the negatives of the US's involvement in the world. Good deeeds outway mistakes. Doing nothing is far worse so do some math and get the results. Doesn't take a genius or mensa member to do some apolitical cost sum analysis or better knoen as adding and substracting benefits versus harms.

There are two types of people who say we shouldn't be involved in the lights and struggles of the world's suffering the KKK types and the leftists types. It is one of the things you guys share in common.

If you truly believe doing nothing is better than doing something when no one else will lift a hand to help the countries you have listed you are deluding yourself into a false reality.

There are bad peopel in the world, msot people don't care unless its directly affecting them, religious people are obligated to end tyrnanny and violence being persecuted against the innocent, the US is a religious country, the US is very powerful, very generous, and exremely charitable due to its family based religious nature which it was founded on by religious people being persecuted all around the world fleeing their homelands to worship in freedom here.

Families sending their sons and daughters across the world to help the helpless in dangerous places is not 'meddling' it is erudite selflessness. Your blindness to the positives and focus on the negatives dont help those who suffer but instead prolong it which is exactly what my article was about, peopel like you.

Thank you for helping (with a real life example, you) illustrate my thoughts.

Agreed. But I'd like to know, what is the reason that the US is the only country qualified to do something about the situation, other than that it's a superpower and you happen to live in it?

I'd like to see a military effort to end the India-Pakistan conflict, but led by the UN instead of the US.

Noam Chomsky is not my idol.

I agree with you the need for an end to the indian/pakistan conflict, nor would I want US soldiers being put in between them.

In my mind it is pretty clear that pakistan is negligent in controlling the terror attacks coming from their region against India.

At the same time reliance on the UN would sadly be for naught. They are as useful as relaince on the EU during the muslim oppresion by christians during the balkan wars which didnt end until the US under nato bombed the hell out of the Serbs.

The US is by far not the only qualified to help out in dire situation we just tend to be the only willing to put our own people in harms way for the benefit of possibly ending bloodshed of others.

We always try to get others to participate and help our efforts we see as just and righteous at the same time we don't stop our efforts if others aren't willing to help out if need be and the need is great we will go it alone.

Here is some critical analysis on Noam Chomsky http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-062602CNoam Alone By Pejman Yousefzadeh.

Mass media all over the world have a habit of putting layers of distortion on top of facts, so that they portray what the media want them to portray. I used to read some books from the US, and they all extol the virtues of the US government, while putting down the Communist dictatorship of Russia, the `atrocities' of the Viet Cong, the `dynasty' of North Korea, the killing of the Tiananmen protesters by the `warlords' of China, etc.

But when I tune in to the news, I see a totally different picture.

I urge you to take a look at news reports from other countries, so that you can see for yourself just how different is different.

At the same time reliance on the UN would sadly be for naught.

The US has never given the UN a chance, starting from day one. She has continually been taking international law in her own hands.

America is in a deep recession Europe is fairing better but not much. Many people have lost out on the markets either directly though shares or in directly via managed funds and pensions. Property markets have now peaked in most places and real estate values are starting to fall.

Business confidence in the EU and Asia due in part; to political and fundamental economic factors is much higher that it is in the US but there consumer debit is growing. The EU is also currently suffering from very poor levels productivity.

I'm afraid that these problems are very likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Due to the recent accounting scandals, the Middle East and the continuing war on terrorism. On a more upbeat note now is certainly the time to be developing security systems such as Pattern recognition systems. Defense and government spending has also increased markedly and this will all feed back in to the wider economy.

The current political rift, between the US and the EU, and the US's poor relations with China. Are also becoming a cause for concern.

Greg

``Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." - Confucious

The governments lackluster security knowledgbase is seeking 10s of thousands of loyal American security and technical professionals.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/governmentjobs/index.htm