Live data from Hacker News

War Is a Racket (1933)

man.fas.org

141–150 of 235 posts

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#141
post #120

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 l…

> Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It is an interesting thought but ... if the government tells the industrial chain "you aren't getting paid for this" then there is a pretty high chance the war will be lost. Being optimistic, maybe it could work for one war. Then the next war people ask "where are our weapons?" and the answer is "there are none". There is…

So first, looking at recent decades' experience doesn't seem to support a "arms profiteering = victory" correlation.

Second, historically... actively curbing private profiteering has generally been considered a crucial part of a successful wartime economy. Post WWII conflicts didn't really have a "war economy" but the principle, IMO, stands.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#142

War 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.

[deleted]

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#144
post #141
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It is an interesting thought but ... if the government tells the industrial chain "you aren't getting paid for this" then there is a pretty high chance the war will be lost. Being optimistic, maybe it could work for one war. Then the next war people ask "where are our weapons?" and the answer is "there are none". There is…

So first, looking at recent decades' experience doesn't seem to support a "arms profiteering = victory" correlation. Second, historically... actively curbing private profiteering has generally been considered a crucial part of a successful wartime economy. Post WWII conflicts didn't really have a "war economy" but the principle, IMO, stands.

The US hasn't fought a serious war in recent decades. They've been bullying countries that practically couldn't fight back. A war against someone with an actual military (Russia, China, India) is different.

There is a great argument that they shouldn't be bullying people. It is a disgrace that the people who benefit from the bullying are getting rich. The bullying doesn't make the US strong either, it probably rots the military in strange ways. But that doesn't change the basic dynamic that the people who support the US war machine need to be paid or the machine will rust and become ineffective. The old maxim "he who wants peace, prepares for war" is a good hint at what will happen if the US tries to curtail war by cutting off funding to their suppliers. Real wars will be started and the US military would lose them.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#146
A much better paper, imo:

https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making

Personally, I like the opinion I read once that it is an inevitable consequence of the existence of power itself, and as a result, the existence of those who seek it and compete for it. The best you can do is stay out of its way.

(Credit goes to a Vietnamese tribal leader named Bear, whose tribe made it through the big war there despite all that happeend.)

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#147

The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead. Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next. Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible…

It doesn't help that each new generation gets a barrage of propaganda pushed onto them equating military service with heroics, honour, patriotism, and so forth. We could teach the next generation that war is bad, if we wanted to, but since the decision to go to war is made by the same government that sets the educational curriculum, well, odds are slim.

"It doesn't help that each new generation gets a barrage of propaganda pushed onto them equating military service with heroics, honour, patriotism, and so forth."

I certainly agree. In my opinion, the basic principles are simple but in practice things get complicated very quickly. If I'm not careful here I'll be quoting everyone from pacifists through to Clausewitz and we will all be bogged down in a mire of detail. This is a huge subject, thousands of books have been written about it.

I'll keep it short. The propaganda and heroics are long inbred and they go back a very long way - thousands of years and there's no better place to start than with the famous Latin quote from the Roman poet Horace:

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

"It is sweet and fitting to die for the homeland (one's country)"

Just about everyone knows these facts but for the few that may not I'll repeat them. During WWI the English poet Wilfred Owen wrote probably the most famous poem of the War and it's a very cynical and poignant reminder of how terrible war is. Therein he lashes out against the wisdom of Horace's quote.

Lttle else need be be said. The poem is short enough to quote here:

.

Dulce et Decorum est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer,

Bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

____

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulce_et_Decorum_est

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulce_et_decorum_est_pro_pat...

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by lying And well... By giving far right proxy forces in the Ukraine arms and training, so the proxy forces can then be used for clandestine operations and hopefully (so nato/us/UK think) instigate a Russian military response to which they can scream casius Beli and create more unrest in the entire area

> far right proxy forces armed forces of a country with a democratically elected civilian government

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

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#150
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of a government, especially the US, laundering money doesn't really make any sense. Generally, the point of laundering money is to pay taxes on it so it can enter the financial system. Governments (and especially the US who has the most control of international monetary pipelines like SWIFT) can freely do what they want with their money generally, at least within their own countries. Their money is going to…

it does, the point is take tax revenue and transfer it to rich buddies, now if it requires starting wars and spending trillions, so be it as long as your buddies end up getting few trillions from it

Money laundering != robbery

It means concealing the origins of illicitly generated revenue.

Post reply on HN