41–50 of 192 posts
There are a few translations, but I like the most one by Marcel Weyland (https://www.antiwarsongs.org/canzone.php?lang=en&id=36782, see also ones into German and Italian).
More on Tuwim in general: https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/features/the-20th-centur....
According to CBO analysis the total cost of Afghan & Iraq wars is going to be something like $2.5 trillion for the US. Imagine if this sum would have been used mostly nonviolently for bribing and buying influence in the region. Depending how the money is distributed, it would have been: * $35k per each person in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you divide it into households maybe something like $100k - 150k per household. *…
Much of the money for war flows right back into the American economy. You pay American soldiers and contractor salaries. You buy weapons and technology from American companies. Bribes don't have the same economic effect. For these large dollar amounts, how you spend it matters as much as how much you spend.
> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/10401...
His statements seem clear but upon further reflection they are not clear. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Okay, so this was written in 1933. The obvious question to me is, would the author have supported US involvement in World War 2? I guess with Pearl Harbor, the US was attacked. But the Japanese at the time might have said that the…
It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or m…
To be fair, we didn't go to war for this reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of the money for war flows right back into the American economy. You pay American soldiers and contractor salaries. You buy weapons and technology from American companies. Bribes don't have the same economic effect. For these large dollar amounts, how you spend it matters as much as how much you spend.
A bigger question is who did it flow back to and how can we track that? Certainly we have contractor operations that are US based, but it is not always clear if what they are doing aligns with American interests. Giving them more money may actually be increasing corruption.
It's a lot of paragraphs that can be summed as "War is expensive and suppliers can earn a lot of money", but he doesn't really discuss the strategic or ethical value of war until the very end with this blurb: > Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or m…
This is nonsense we allied with one murderous dictator and fought another, our involvement in that war was in no way righteous.
> I'd also argue that there's a huge fallacy in his premise. Yes, war is profitable for many industries. I think it's inarguable that peace is vastly more profitable for even more industries. Friendly international relations, stable supply lines and prosperous consumers are far more valuable than anything else.
His point is that it is vastly profitable for a _few_ people, and also implicitly that what you are saying is true because he wants peace.
His statements seem clear but upon further reflection they are not clear. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Okay, so this was written in 1933. The obvious question to me is, would the author have supported US involvement in World War 2? I guess with Pearl Harbor, the US was attacked. But the Japanese at the time might have said that the…
So our options were to ignore that Japan was invading China, and continue to sell them steel, rubber, and gasoline, or to embargo them, or to declare war on them. We didn't declare war, which is consistent with the article's viewpoint. Should we have embargoed them (even at the risk of eventual war), or should we just continue to sell stuff to them that helps them attack China? To me, it's pretty clear that the embargo was the moral thing to do.
According to CBO analysis the total cost of Afghan & Iraq wars is going to be something like $2.5 trillion for the US. Imagine if this sum would have been used mostly nonviolently for bribing and buying influence in the region. Depending how the money is distributed, it would have been: * $35k per each person in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you divide it into households maybe something like $100k - 150k per household. *…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bigger question is who did it flow back to and how can we track that? Certainly we have contractor operations that are US based, but it is not always clear if what they are doing aligns with American interests. Giving them more money may actually be increasing corruption.
The largest single line-item is salaries and compensation (including healthcare). Most people getting those salaries are lower-middleclass.
There is ample evidence of defense contractor stock values appreciating, including a network of contractors that are hard to fully track, so not always assured they are US based, and same for the investors in those companies.
Ex. Mercenaries from other countries, airplane wiring from India, etc.