• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defense Contractors Cite “Benefits” of Escalating Conflicts in the Middle East

American said:
How many in Congress vote against the defense budget?
Click to expand...

Why is it called the "Defense" budget. We are on "Offense." The USA insists upon Unipolar World hegemony and operates with its' big stick all over the World. The USA would go broke without a War Economy. We've been at war with somebody for most of the last 100 years. Wars of aggression, for the most part. It's Big Business, first and foremost. These are the people/CORPORATIONS that rent politicians. The USA needs ISIS to focus the Nation and to create a media threat to build a Police State, think military and more War business. Permanent War guarantees a Permanent war economy and we all know "War is good business and business is good."
By the way, who is MORON ABE in your signature.
 
The purpose of warfare in the 21st. century (according to George Orwell):

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society.
Click to expand...

So, if we don't use up a portion of production on warfare, we'll wind up with a surplus of consumption goods. We can't have that.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would rather that government spending actually improve the country and its people. Yes, those who work for the defense companies are gainfully employed, but if a permanent state of war brought under fraud is necessary for that, well, that is a steep penalty to pay for employment numbers.

As our bridges and other infrastructure crumble, I would rather the money be spent to improve our situation at home, NOT building $43 million gas stations in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

All of the first two sentences above is rhetorical and hyperbolic opinion.

The third sentence, I agree with. However, we do not live in a world where we can ignore everyone else in this world that wants to do harm to others.
 
Beaudreaux said:
All of the first two sentences above is rhetorical and hyperbolic opinion.

The third sentence, I agree with. However, we do not live in a world where we can ignore everyone else in this world that wants to do harm to others.
Click to expand...

Yes, but of course we CAN ignore those in this country's government that torture, bomb hospitals, drone weddings and other innocents. We can and must ignore those elected officials who took us to war under fraud for the benefit of defense contractors and what Ike described as the MIC. Got it! :mrgreen: Let's just pretend things like that didn't happen, eh?
 
American said:
How many in Congress vote against the defense budget?
Click to expand...

Who says there is a limit to the number of members of Congress that we challenge on their monetary relationship to any industry?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, but of course we CAN ignore those in this country's government that torture, bomb hospitals, drone weddings and other innocents. We can and must ignore those elected officials who took us to war under fraud for the benefit of defense contractors and what Ike described as the MIC. Got it! :mrgreen: Let's just pretend things like that didn't happen, eh?
Click to expand...

If you feel so strongly and have the evidence to back up your accusations, take 'em to court. You have that right under the 1st Amendment's Redress Clause. Until then, I'll just accept your claims as a protected diatribe under the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause, and nothing more.
 
Beaudreaux said:
If you feel so strongly and have the evidence to back up your accusations, take 'em to court. You have that right under the 1st Amendment's Redress Clause. Until then, I'll just accept your claims as a protected diatribe under the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I thought we had this discussion before, but have you any idea of how much effort and money is required to "take 'em to court"?

Have you ever brought a lawsuit against another? Against the government? Are you familiar with ACLU?

It is very difficult to bring a case, and very expensive. The judiciary takes care of its own.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Can't end Congress, but we can look at the monetary relationship of the military industrial complex to some in Congress.
Click to expand...

I thought that was done all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom