Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

War Is a Racket (1933)

wanttoknow.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 192 posts

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#61

Post by hoorayimhelping »

daveslash wrote: post #28
vga805 wrote: post #11

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend…

I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?

I almost joined the Marines (but failed to make it for OCS due to health reasons). My dad's side of the family is a military family, with my grandfather being a career officer in the Army and two uncles also serving.

I think it's much deeper than "defend the country." For a lot of people, the military is the only ticket out of their bumfuck nowhere life. For some people, it's a chance to learn some self discipline and self confidence. For some people, it's a brotherhood of warriors they're part of. For some people, it's a way to get a college education. For some people, it's about defending their nation. Of course there are plenty of people who watch a Michael Bay movie and think they'll be some badass operator if they enlist.

I think someone like Smedley Butler might have viewed the military as a place that turns boys into confident men, teaches them valuable skills, instills discipline and self respect into them, and hooks them into a network of lifelong brothers.

War is not necessary for any of this, and he realized that when we go to war, he has to send his men to die so that people with contacts in Washington can get rich. He says in the linked paper that he suspected it when he was a Marine and finally realized it after he retired.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#62

Post by Ididntdothis »

daveslash wrote: post #28
vga805 wrote: post #11

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend…

I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?

“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?”

It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#63

Post by pstuart »

aazaa wrote: post #17

> 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…

The recent report on the failure of the war in Afghanistan shows that it makes no sense either. And it's going on right now.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#64

Post by socialdemocrat »

alharith wrote: post #52
nabla9 wrote: post #9

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. *…

Corruption is not dependable. There's always the option to simply just take your money, and not hold up to your end of the bargain. War ensures the outcome you desire. (Read my comment in the context of the article. War ensures the cycle perpetuates, and our modern version of this article is maintaining the current status quo with the military industrial complex, ala the desired outcome of more wars.)

Except it doesn't. Every war the US has engaged in since WWII has had rather poor outcomes and cost a fortune. I would have risked failed corruption instead.

Anyway you don't have to dump a trillion in Iraq in one go. You would have bribed people with individual amounts over longer time and measured progress and outcomes.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#65

Post by lostcolony »

aazaa wrote: post #17

> 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…

So WWII as being necessary to stop Hitler, I can see withstanding the test of time.

The things that caused WWII, Hitler's rise to power, and the systems that enabled and, frankly, bent him and the Nazis towards the evils they committed, I think we were culpable for, for how Germany was positioned on the world stage post WWI. Germany was ripe for a demagogue, and people needed the sense of security mindlessly following one provides.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#66

Post by [deleted] »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #59
nostromo wrote: post #18

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.

That is the wrong way to look at it. By this token digging holes in America is a profitable enterprise. If you pay hole diggers in America, hey all the money goes the American economy. Whenever talking about an economic issue people have to stop thinking in terms of money and start thinking in terms of goods and services made. The point of an economy is not to circulate money for kicks and giggles. Money is just to f…

[deleted]

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#67

Post by rayhendricks »

lacker wrote: post #32

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…

The United States should not have embargoed Japan. The United stars should not have been involved in any of the world wars. Sweden has been neutral in all conflicts since 1814 and that has worked out quite well for them.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#68

Post by ceejayoz »

lacker wrote: post #32

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…

I don't think it's that difficult to extrapolate eventual difficulties for the Bill of Rights in a world dominated by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as the two super powers.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#69

Post by syrrim »

nostromo wrote: post #26
ceejayoz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Sure, I would rather us spend $2.5T on American infrastructure, but the comparison I responded to pitted bribes vs warfare.

The money will funnel back into the US eventually anyways. Unless you have some reason to prefer giving defense contractors the money, the money might as well go to whatever middle eastern people like to buy from the US. The advantage of this scheme is that fewer lives need to be lost, the regions in question can become more stable and productive, and US interests are better promoted.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#70

Post by krapp »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #62
daveslash wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?

“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?” It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.

We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war.

Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare.

I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country.

Post reply on HN