In history when the funding has exhausted, does the country funding the war make peace and work out an un-workable situation? i.e. U.S.S.R?
2007-03-27 07:57:13 · 5 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
More or less, yeah. Countries based on war economies are basically rapacious. It's open banditry. You have to have enough stiff resistance, though to make that a reality. Don't forget the French were totally Chapter Eleven til Bonaparte showed up and started whacking bank accounts once he crossed the Saint Bernard Pass and invaded the Piedmont.
2007-03-27 08:01:05 · answer #1 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Typically cutting off supplies is a strategy to win a war. If an army cannot be resupplied they lose. It looks as though the terrorist are stepping closer to cutting off our supply through funding. Thank you Democrat led congress!
/sarc
2007-03-27 15:13:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Money won't run out. It's called deficit spending. As long as there are two people on earth there will be war.
2007-03-27 15:23:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because we still have weapons. When the big ones are done being used, we still have knives, and rocks, which also can be used to create more knives, using steel. More people will be fighting, though.
2007-03-27 15:03:14 · answer #4 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Historically, insane leaders with delusions of grandeur have often spent their nations into bankruptcy and ruin before they were deposed by the people.
2007-03-27 15:01:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋