US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

1echidna

Better to live on reduced rations, give up the car and accept budget medical (and other) services than see millions blown to pieces in war not to mention the money wasted. Palatable ..... I think not, but I suppose situations could arise where it is the least worse option.

nearlynew

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Palatable?

It sounds incredible doesn't it. That a war can be seen as palatable.

But George is right.

In a sick world of twisted logic, driven by debt-fuelled consumerism and with a sycophantic media churning out propoganda a war can be made to look so.

who cares about millions of people dying, if it means we get to keep buying new toys?

1echidna

There is also a big well of anti war sentiment in the community. Unless armies seem likely to mass on the continent ready to invade it would be very difficult to raise support for a major war. Memories of mass slaughter in the previous century linger and we have a much more risk averse society today. Modern communication and travel has brought people of different countries much closer today and it is only a few relatively small countries which can be described as rogues. Things may change, of course, but it is very speculative to talk about world war as being a likely scenario.

Gorgeous_George

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Palatable?

I chose the word carefully despite spelling it incorrectly.

China's one child policy wasn't particularly popular - but it was right IMO. We live in a country where having children is rewarded with ever increasing state benefits. We want more people to support the pensions of the elderly. It is a huge pyramid scam that can only end in failure.

In our democracy, any government doing what is best for the country will not be re-elected. Instead we will vote for the party promising to give us more stuff. You can't have too much stuff, can you?

GG

amcluesent

>Things may change, of course, but it is very speculative to talk about world war as being a likely scenario<

The logic for the Judeo-Christian block to initiate a 'first strike' is overwhelming.

As we meekly surrender to each of their ever increasing demands, it's no wonder Europe's Muslims are partying like its 799.

1echidna

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

nstead we will vote for the party promising to give us more stuff. You can't have too much stuff, can you?

GG

The prospect of having less 'stuff' can be alarming but probably the prospect is more alarming than the reality, which one can adjust to. I don't think that people are generally fools enough to think that sending people off to fight overseas (incidently deprived of their 'stuff') is likely to be a very bright move and very likely, aside from death and disability, is more likely to impoverish rather than enrich.

PasturesNew

As a single person, with no kids .... so long as stuff stays roughly in place for about another 35-40 years, I don't really care.

Gorgeous_George

Sadly, the very people that we need to have children cannot afford to because they are busy working to pay taxes for the unemployed chavs who drain the benefits system.

It's Darwin's Theory of Evolution - in reverse.

GG

bo_drinker

Don't get planning any big wars soon you can't get the staff apparently, read this,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/14/few-dare-win-115875-21439082/

1echidna

People talking nonsense about world wars, energy crunch catastrophe and reverse evolution makes me wonder about their judgement on economic matters of which I confess my grasp is not all that it might be.