[Rushy]

The US only nuked Japan to prove to November 17 that nukes are real, but he ended up just saying it was firebombing anyway.

[Particle Person]

I don't suppose you have a shred of evidence to back that up, do you?

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it. 

No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.

[Rushy]

No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.

And?

[Particle Person]

No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.

And?

Considering George Orwell thought war was never profitable

Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.

[Thork]

No part of that quote indicates that Orwell thought that war is never profitable.

And?

Considering George Orwell thought war was never profitable

Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.

I doubt he has ever read anything written by Orwell. That's going to make knowing where to look a bit difficult. I was going to ignore it, in the same way I have chosen to ignore Lord Dave's last post due to its off point and nonsensical prose. 

[markjo]

War, for the most part, isn't about money, per se.  It's more about resources.

[Rushy]

Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.

It does, though. There are better writings that portray his thoughts; but if I waste time finding links for them, Thork will just toss more out of context quotes at me that he acquired via some Above Top Secret. The problem is that Thork isn't arguing for Orwell's writings, he is simply arguing his own views vicariously through other more well known individuals. It leads to a roundabout argument because Thork is too scared to support his own ideas.

i.e. yawn

[Particle Person]

Then, when asked for evidence, you provided the quote that doesn't indicate that Orwell thought war was never profitable.

It does, though.

How?

[Rushy]

How?

How does it not?

[Particle Person]

I know you may not have a lot of experience with this, but it is possible to think something and for it to also be true.

[Saddam Hussein]

Jesus Christ, would you two fuck off with this shit already?  I'm sure you both think that you're being hilariously glib, but it's just a fucking eyesore for the rest of us whenever these low-content back-and-forths start up.

[Particle Person]

We're sorry Saddam. We didn't even stop to consider whether or not you, Saddam Hussein, are actually entertained by our posts. I promise it will never happen again.

[Rushy]

I know you may not have a lot of experience with this, but it is possible to think something and for it to also be true.

That depends on the person who is doing the thinking.

Jesus Christ, would you two fuck off with this shit already?  I'm sure you both think that you're being hilariously glib, but it's just a fucking eyesore for the rest of us whenever these low-content back-and-forths start up.

Yeah, Saddam, we're sorry for screwing up your own personal enjoyment of forum threads. I'm sure you'd like the thread to get right back to Thork's high-content ramblings of how his NWO bank-masters are just itching to nuke Europe so they can profit from rebuilding it.

[Saddam Hussein]

His NWO bank-masters?  Are you suggesting that Thork is in league with them?

[Vindictus]

Saddam, FES police.

[Rushy]

His NWO bank-masters?  Are you suggesting that Thork is in league with them?

Only a slave possesses a master. Also certain other things. but we're not talking about those.

[Ghost of V]

War never changes.

[Lord Wilmore]

http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-believes-he-can-win-a-war-with-nato-piontkovsky-says/

According to the commentator, “even the most modest practical realization of [Putin’s] idea of ‘assembling the Russian lands’ requires changes of state borders at least of two NATO member countries, Latvia and Estonia.” Because of the Western alliance’s Article 5 in which an attack on one is an attack on all, that would seem impossible given MAD.

But as many analysts have suggested before, “the MAD doctrine considered only a single most destructive scenario of a military conflict between nuclear powers, total war.” But there are other scenarios, including the limited use of nuclear weapons by one side under conditions when the other side does not respond lest that lead to “mutual suicide.”

[sandokhan]

History is repeating itself.

During the period 1939-1941, USSR prepared for war by annexing territories which would later be used strategically.

The same thing is happening now.

NATO (as a military entity/alliance) should have been dissolved decades ago; to bring Poland, the Czech republic and Hungary into NATO and to extend its borders all the way to the Prut river during the 1990s, meant only one thing: a future war Nato/Russia was planned from the very start (1990).

[Vindictus]

lol, war with Russia has been planned by America since the beginning of the Cold War. That is no secret.