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

131–140 of 192 posts

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#131

Post by jcranmer »

enriquepablo wrote: post #121
jcranmer wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth pointing out that Butler served at the time when the US foreign policy was pretty explicitly based on aggressive interest in foreign trade: if another country wouldn't let Americans in for commerce, than send in the Marines to force them to do so. As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.

> As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.

The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in.

If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#133

Post by nlfwhulsdhouv »

deciplex wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What made America ripe for a demagogue?

The capitalist project has failed, and our Constitution - poorly written even for the time - is wholly unequipped to deal with the crisis, nor the emergence of highly ideological political parties.

The challenge becomes what to do next. Do we follow Lenin's teaching and attempt a revolution, do we structure our society around trade-unionism, do we need to invent a new form of government, or are we destined to a fascist future ruled by increasingly imperial powers?

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#134

Post by j8014 »

krapp wrote: post #70
Ididntdothis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 thei…

I bet you are technically correct, because support roles are the majority of the positions available. The guys who join a combat arms MOS sign up to fight. I signed up for a 19D slot in 2006.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#135

Post by AnimalMuppet »

roenxi wrote: post #125
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long after Hitler has been replaced by the next boogeyman I don't envy the people living in those times. Hitler is one hell of a boogeyman to top.

It depends how you measure it as there were worse people in the same era as Hitler. If I recall the stats correctly it is a much better bet to be led by someone like Hitler over Stalin or Mao. The ethnically targeted nature of the holocaust is the main claim to 'worst of the worst' status, but honestly it isn't obvious to me that a dead Jew is more horrific than a dead anyone else. They are both pretty bad.

Hitler was horrible. Stalin was horrible. Stalin killed more people. But Stalin had more years in which to do it, and ruled a larger population. If you calculate (total body count) / (people-years ruled), I suspect Hitler was worse. (He might not be worse than Pol Pot, though...)

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#136

Post by enriquepablo »

jcranmer wrote: post #131
enriquepablo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.

The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in. If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on yo…

> then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect

Don't say on "me", I was just offering a plausible side. But I agree it is a difficult question. There is the point you make, but there is also the point made by asking "cui bono".

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#137

Post by sabarn01 »

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…

> Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its protracted (and still ongoing) resolution.

We get to look back with hind sight and only remember negative consequences from positive actions. The US entered WW1 after Germany began unrestricted submarine ware fare for the second time, and coming on the heels of the Zimmerman telegram. France and Belgium were invaded by hostile power. Germany feared Russian modernization and fear of not being able to Compete with France and Russia. Russia sided with the Serbs. France Sided with Russia whose alliance it has sought to counteract the power of a newly unified Germany which had defeated France in 1871 taken territory and imposed a large reparation payment. Austria an absolute monarchy wanted to quite serb nationalism.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#138

Post by earlINmeyerkeg »

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…

WWII had a compulsory draft where it was already established by then that congress had the power to initiate a draft. It was also hashed out that it was a federal issue and not a state one.

Which we all know is hot garbage. The government quite literally says, your individual freedoms are not greater than our goal for the country. If you ask me, that sounds NO different than communism! But when you fight for uncle sam, it must mean "the greater good" is good, just because the "greater good" isn't commie red "greater good."

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#139

Post by mncolinlee »

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…

Honestly, the most interesting chapter in Butler's career has to be when he stopped a Fascist American coup attempt against FDR by many of the war profiteers he spoke about. https://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-pl...

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#140

Post by sabarn01 »

krapp wrote: post #79
ceejayoz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That assumes either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan would have remained stable enough to matter as world powers. Either or both could just as well have collapsed from within.

The soviet union induced as much suffering as the Nazis and remanded stable for the better part of a century.
Post reply on HN