for everyone a question

[kimba1]

what business or industry should tank in america?

I ask because I`m guarding a fashion exhibit and I`m trying to figure out is fashion good for the american economy.
so i ask what industry or business do you think is of no use to america

[_JS]

I'm not sure there is a good way to answer that kimba.

For those who believe in the market, the answer would be, "whatever business does not succeed."

Some religious folks would probably like to see the pornography industry fail.

I think it just depends on where the person answering the question is coming from. The fashion industry has two sides I suppose. One is all show and preys on excess and may even portray women in a dangerous light for young girls. On the other hand, I'm sure it provides a lot of jobs to various people.

[richpo64]

The abortion industry would be an excellent start.

[Michael Tee]

The military. 

[richpo64]

The military? Then who would protect your "free" healthcare?

[Michael Tee]

<<The military? Then who would protect your "free" healthcare?>>

From whom?

[Lanya]

I wouldn't choose fashion--that's a real window on how people think and feel. It's an expression of the times,  artistic expression I guess. Depression-era clothes were different from WW2 styles, etc. 

[Plane]

<<The military? Then who would protect your "free" healthcare?>>

From whom?

Whomever there might be that would like to take from Canada what ever Canada has got.

The reason that this seems far fetched, is that Canada has been allied or associated with the worlds most powerfull nations for generations , it would not seem far fetched in Uganda or Venezuela.

[Michael Tee]

<<The reason that this seems far fetched, is that Canada has been allied or associated with the worlds most powerfull nations for generations , it would not seem far fetched in Uganda or Venezuela.>>

Both Canada and the U.S. are huge land masses of which an invading army can hold very little at any one time.  For that reason, I believe both countries can make do with very small standing armies as long as the capability to rapidly increase them in an emergency is always present.  IMHO, both countries, but the U.S. particularly, spend way more than necessary on the military.

The U.S. military in fact is not used for defence but to attack other countries all around the world.  The cost of maintaining this capability and using it is draining desperately needed funds from Americans in need of help.

[Plane]

<<The reason that this seems far fetched, is that Canada has been allied or associated with the worlds most powerfull nations for generations , it would not seem far fetched in Uganda or Venezuela.>>

Both Canada and the U.S. are huge land masses of which an invading army can hold very little at any one time.  For that reason, I believe both countries can make do with very small standing armies as long as the capability to rapidly increase them in an emergency is always present.  IMHO, both countries, but the U.S. particularly, spend way more than necessary on the military.

The U.S. military in fact is not used for defence but to attack other countries all around the world.  The cost of maintaining this capability and using it is draining desperately needed funds from Americans in need of help.

That might have been true long ago, before a small force ever used a force multiplyer to defeat a larger force.

Like before Alexander the Great.

The number of men under arms is not such a big deal nowadays what you spend on the war effort makes more diffrence.

Was France spending enough on prepations for war in 1938? Did they need more or did they need better forsight?

[_JS]

I'm not seeing your argument being made very well Plane.

The German Army and Air Force was vastly superior to those of France. Also, German tactics had already been battle-proven first in Spain during the Civil War and then in Poland in 1939.

I think that what Mike is saying is that a quickly armed public who believes in defending their nation and employs guerrilla warfare is extremely difficult to dislodge. For example, the Germans had much more difficulty controlling Serbia - despite the Croatians using brutally ruthless tactics - than controlling France. The United States, a superior force to the North Vietnamese in everything but sheer number, had incredible difficulty with the Vietcong and Vietnamese forces. It wasn't that the Germans or Americans could not win battles, they could - decisively - it was that neither was able to hold territory and even worse, the cost/benefit of controlling those particular regions was ridiculously high.

[Plane]

I'm not seeing your argument being made very well Plane.

The German Army and Air Force was vastly superior to those of France. Also, German tactics had already been battle-proven first in Spain during the Civil War and then in Poland in 1939.

I think that what Mike is saying is that a quickly armed public who believes in defending their nation and employs guerrilla warfare is extremely difficult to dislodge. For example, the Germans had much more difficulty controlling Serbia - despite the Croatians using brutally ruthless tactics - than controlling France. The United States, a superior force to the North Vietnamese in everything but sheer number, had incredible difficulty with the Vietcong and Vietnamese forces. It wasn't that the Germans or Americans could not win battles, they could - decisively - it was that neither was able to hold territory and even worse, the cost/benefit of controlling those particular regions was ridiculously high.

So France needed a stronger second admendment protection for its citizens , not a Maginot line?

[_JS]

So France needed a stronger second admendment protection for its citizens , not a Maginot line?

I was just clarifying Mike's point of view.

Neither one would have saved France. They were toast.

[Plane]

So France needed a stronger second admendment protection for its citizens , not a Maginot line?

I was just clarifying Mike's point of view.

Neither one would have saved France. They were toast.

Without outside help the Vichy Government could have lasted a generation .

Chirchill spent years warning the English that they needed more preparation , if the USA had not been availible , the English too would have fallen.

If Hitler had acheived his origional purpose , and occupied England , he might well have had American help when he attacked the Soviet Union.

If France had an armed citezenry , defense in depth , or some other thing that actually would have made the Blitzkrig hard to acheive they might not have been invaded.

[kimba1]

wow
wasn`t expecting such a response
but I was aiming for economic reasons.
but military is a good start
I would not say no military but a movement for different one.
It definately needs policy reviews to cut down(not eliminate) waste
I don`t mind $100 hammers but I do mind if they are bought and not needed.
A lady made a few million doing that selling washers.