I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to look like patriots and some clueless young guys have to go to war and die". Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It's just not right that some people are raking in the big money without risk while some poor guys have to go and die.
War Is a Racket (1933)
51–60 of 235 posts
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to sort it out. I've read stories in American media that describe a Russian troop build-up and make an invasion seem inevitable ("they wouldn't expend these resources to mobilize this many soldiers without plans to invade"). I've also read stories that claim the Russians only have ~10,000 troops at the border, not nearly enough for an invasion, and that the amount hasn't actually changed. The Ukranians seem…
Believe what you want but this¹ is a clear indicator that an invasion is inevitable. 10k troops is likely Russian propaganda. I've read the Russian point of view and it's basically "the US has provoked this by extending NATO into Eastern Europe, Ukraine is controlled by fascists". They have failed to install a pro Russian administration in Ukraine, so their only remaining option is "liberating eastern and southern Uk…
Sorry, it was actually 100K which still doesn't seem enough for an invasion. The question is whether the number of soldiers has increased as of late, which the Ukrainians deny.
My overall point is that I don't know whether to trust articles like the one you linked or things the Ukrainians and Russians are saying. It's not that I think the American media is lying exactly but it occurs to me that they may be deluding themselves.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've completely glossed over the root of it here. The lie that Russia is going to invade Ukraine is the "Saddam has WMDs" Every time the US media talks about an imminent "Russian Invasion", or suggests that they are not the ones instigating the war, they are indirectly instigating war with Russia by lying.
Russia already did invade Ukraine. It has been taking Ukraine territory and waging war on Ukraine for years now. Last time Russia took over Ukraine, they genocided millions; It wasn't that long ago, either.
[flagged]
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#54War is a racket. But to imply that the little guy does not profit is disingenuous. 330 million Americans profit from the fact the US dollar is a reserve currency. Countries and people park their money in dollars, and as the world economy grows, there's a need for more dollars, and the US Government obliges by running mind blowing deficits. In the old times, vassals would pay tribute, today, they simply buy US Treasur…
Having the dollar as the reserve currency resulted in at first the draining of American gold reserves, and now the draining of American manufacturing. So it hasn't been without a cost.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy is amazing and it really speaks of the troubles of war. >The flag follows the dollar, the soldiers follow the flag. I find this "business plot"[0] to be fascinating as well. >Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler asserted that wealthy businessmen were plotting to create a fascist veterans' organization with Butler as its leader and use it in a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt. >Early in the com…
Don't forget that congress redacted a ton of stuff from his testimony and the unredacted version wasnt discovered until the 1970s or something like that. Smedley Butler has always been my favorite Marine because he saw the bigger picture, and I like to give the Chesty lovers a talking to about the differences. From my experience I can confirm that war is indeed a racket.
Chesty did have some good lines, though, like "We're surrounded. That simplifies things."
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#56I read this book (or a good chunk of it) awhile ago and something was off about it. I didn't believe he knew what he was talking about. I dont recall any counter examples in his book, or him claiming he had direct experience with businesses matters. Perhaps he conflated correlation and causation. Some businesses are going to profit from war because demand for certain items will spike. But to claim WW I was pushed by…
WW1 was thought to have been impossible to happen ahead of time because of the losses in business and trade would have been too great. Claiming that it was pushed by business interests is an extraordinary claim which to my knowledge has never been substantiated with any extraordinary evidence.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
What higher ups? Where and when the US military is used is not decided by the military. It's decided by politicians. This resonated strongly with me when I was a young US Marine but I don't feel the same now. It's one of those pure and simple ideas that's easy to say but the world is not pure and simple.
There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians, it is absolutely not a one-way street of control. This is the entire premise of the term military-industrial complex. Military will always advocate for itself to get more funding and more use (as in, bombing things). And it will continue to serve as a successful launching point for political careers. Not to mention all the companies, fat off of d…
> There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians.
Definitely. I recommend H. R. McMaster's Dereliction Of Duty, which discusses how military leaders, many with political ambitions, helped to get the US into Vietnam.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#58Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#59This talk from 1933 aged poorly. America's initial lack of intervention in WW2 resulted in Pearl Harbor and German conquest of most of Europe. Smedley Butler can stay forgotten as a footnote in the dusty annals of history.
OP does make interesting point. Why didn’t the capitalists (if they are so powerful) bring America into the war sooner? This is a very valid point. Maybe worded badly but a perfectly valid thing to point out. There is a clear contradiction here: In Democracies, public opinion does matter. It isn’t 100% capitalism. The capitalists might be able to get away with some excursions here and there, but when it comes to inva…
> Why didn’t the capitalists (if they are so powerful) bring America into the war sooner?
Plenty of them were selling products to Germany, including many that would end up being used by the German war machine. If the US entered the war against Germany, all that would have had to stop.
Re: War Is a Racket (1933)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
What higher ups? Where and when the US military is used is not decided by the military. It's decided by politicians. This resonated strongly with me when I was a young US Marine but I don't feel the same now. It's one of those pure and simple ideas that's easy to say but the world is not pure and simple.
There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians, it is absolutely not a one-way street of control. This is the entire premise of the term military-industrial complex. Military will always advocate for itself to get more funding and more use (as in, bombing things). And it will continue to serve as a successful launching point for political careers. Not to mention all the companies, fat off of d…
You should read some memoires from higher-ups in the military instead of trying to lecture people about something you have no experience with. Military leaders will say they don't need more equipment, but politicians will spend a ton on it anyway because the equipment is built in their district. Military advice is often ignored by politicians in order to score political points, like when Obama ignored advice to increase military presence in Afghanistan to regain control, and instead let it drag on with insufficient resources, ensuring it was a waste of time and life.