• 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!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

You're right. The World has not been safe against USA aggression from Granada, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yemen, Chile, etc. and not one of those Nations attacked us. We attacked them. Afghanistan is partially justified because of OBL, but Omar asked for evidence that OBL was behind 9-11 and implied if we could prove that, then he would submit OBL to authorities. We've attacked lots of Nations. Full time war. Good for business, don't you think? You're right. The World is not a safe place. The War Machine is out to getcha.

LOL. Nice failed attempt to lump everything together as the USA being the aggressor in each and every case. When excluding all the countries you listed that truly did not meet your "aggressor" standard, really what we're left with is two off your list. Haiti and Libya. And if we do a really big stretch, Libya falls off the list as well. Our actions in all the other you listed were the result of the aggressive actions of listed country and the USSR or muslim terrorists.

And no, overall long term, war is not good for business. But it is a good thing we have a "war machine". If we didn't, we'd be dodging more bombs than we have. There is an old saying that applies to everyone (I don't know where it came from) and it is completely true. Here it is: "You may have no interest in war but it always has an interest in you". History proves that statement 100% correct.
 
While I'm not privy to Jane Fonda's deepest private thoughts on the matter, the pictures make me uneasy. She's supposedly anti-war, roughly 35 years old and in my opinion a little past being like "wow gosh lookit the big boom stick!" I'm in my thirties, relatively anti-war myself, and know what a damn cannon is and what it's used for.

She was a real jerk, and that's an understatement IMO. If she feels badly about how she behaved back then, good, she should.
 
LOL. Nice failed attempt to lump everything together as the USA being the aggressor in each and every case. When excluding all the countries you listed that truly did not meet your "aggressor" standard, really what we're left with is two off your list. Haiti and Libya. And if we do a really big stretch, Libya falls off the list as well. Our actions in all the other you listed were the result of the aggressive actions of listed country and the USSR or muslim terrorists.

And no, overall long term, war is not good for business. But it is a good thing we have a "war machine". If we didn't, we'd be dodging more bombs than we have. There is an old saying that applies to everyone (I don't know where it came from) and it is completely true. Here it is: "You may have no interest in war but it always has an interest in you". History proves that statement 100% correct.

Libya doesn't "fall off". the US spent the most money, flew the most sorties, did command and control, and targeted the Qaddafi convoy for assassination outside Sirte.

Further Hillary/Suan Rice lied about the "Viagra rape"
Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

At the end of the "NATO partnership" it was only the US/GB/France (the 'old colonialists' to tie into this thread) left.
The rest of NATO had dropped out.
Oh. and our actions created the terrorist state that is now Libya. Yankee Doodle.
 
Libya doesn't "fall off". the US spent the most money, flew the most sorties, did command and control, and targeted the Qaddafi convoy for assassination outside Sirte.

Further Hillary/Suan Rice lied about the "Viagra rape"
Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

At the end of the "NATO partnership" it was only the US/GB/France (the 'old colonialists' to tie into this thread) left.
The rest of NATO had dropped out.
Oh. and our actions created the terrorist state that is now Libya. Yankee Doodle.

Libya, and Gaddafi, was never terrorist free but he was a known known and, following Iraq, the west pretty much had him under control. There was no reason I could see for getting rid of him, especially while 'leading from the rear'.
 
So you're good with communism. How did you feel about the fascists and the nazis?

Fascism and Corporatism are pretty much the same thing and I don't like the Corporatism here in the USA. "War is good business" is Corporatism and it is a boom business here in the USA. China is Communist and I don't hear your rant indicting China. I don't think anybody ever liked the Nazis. The Nazis were the last bad guy "ism" that I can recollect. All others are marketed and promoted for war profit and corporate resource acquisition. Like OIL in the ME. Pipeline routes. Shipping lanes. Normal, everyday CORPORATISM. Known as Fascism under Mussolini but just plain old Corporatism here in the USA.
 
LOL. Nice failed attempt to lump everything together as the USA being the aggressor in each and every case. When excluding all the countries you listed that truly did not meet your "aggressor" standard, really what we're left with is two off your list. Haiti and Libya. And if we do a really big stretch, Libya falls off the list as well. Our actions in all the other you listed were the result of the aggressive actions of listed country and the USSR or muslim terrorists.

And no, overall long term, war is not good for business. But it is a good thing we have a "war machine". If we didn't, we'd be dodging more bombs than we have. There is an old saying that applies to everyone (I don't know where it came from) and it is completely true. Here it is: "You may have no interest in war but it always has an interest in you". History proves that statement 100% correct.

Explain the $600 billion USA Military Offense budget. It is more than the rest of the world's combined military budgets and we are less than 5% of the World's population. We've gone bankrupt spending $3 trillion on failed wars in the last decade and we were the aggressor/invader in every case. Morons is all I think. Easily deceived, media manipulated mental mind bending at its' finest and you are the star of the class, as far as I can tell. Your cerebral sponge sucks up everything so you don't have to see reality, eh?
 
Fascism and Corporatism are pretty much the same thing and I don't like the Corporatism here in the USA. "War is good business" is Corporatism and it is a boom business here in the USA. China is Communist and I don't hear your rant indicting China. I don't think anybody ever liked the Nazis. The Nazis were the last bad guy "ism" that I can recollect. All others are marketed and promoted for war profit and corporate resource acquisition. Like OIL in the ME. Pipeline routes. Shipping lanes. Normal, everyday CORPORATISM. Known as Fascism under Mussolini but just plain old Corporatism here in the USA.

You appeared to go light on communism, easily use the term 'fascism' as a pejorative and feel the nazis were the last bad guy 'ism' that you can recollect.

Of course fascism and 'corporatism', whatever that means, are not 'pretty much the same thing', which is probably why you don't invite comparison or offer examples. Why do you feel US corporations are worse than other corporations? I've traveled to a few countries and the locals always want to work for countries based in the democracies, including American.

Maybe you aren't aware of "The Evil Empire" and their history of murder, through a variety of means, of well over 100,000,000 people, and destroying the lives of millions more.

That anyone could claim that Nazism was the last bad guy 'ism' is truly shocking in this new world of immediate information. It's sad and pathetic and reflects very badly on recent educational systems.

http://www.amazon.ca/product-review.../176-5621773-2085947?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

https://archive.org/details/TheBlackBookofCommunism10
 
You appeared to go light on communism, easily use the term 'fascism' as a pejorative and feel the nazis were the last bad guy 'ism' that you can recollect.

Of course fascism and 'corporatism', whatever that means, are not 'pretty much the same thing', which is probably why you don't invite comparison or offer examples. Why do you feel US corporations are worse than other corporations? I've traveled to a few countries and the locals always want to work for countries based in the democracies, including American.

Maybe you aren't aware of "The Evil Empire" and their history of murder, through a variety of means, of well over 100,000,000 people, and destroying the lives of millions more.

That anyone could claim that Nazism was the last bad guy 'ism' is truly shocking in this new world of immediate information. It's sad and pathetic and reflects very badly on recent educational systems.

Amazon.ca: Customer Reviews: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression

https://archive.org/details/TheBlackBookofCommunism10

SOUND FAMILIAR?

CORPORATISM
Corporatism
"Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved the management of sectors of the economy via government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, in theory, represent its professional concerns, especially through negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This approach, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was used in specific instances of silencing opposition and rewarding political loyalty."
 
Explain the $600 billion USA Military Offense budget.

I can't, it doesn't exist.
It is more than the rest of the world's combined military budgets and we are less than 5% of the World's population.
Good thing it's us instead of China, Russia, North Korea......
We've gone bankrupt spending $3 trillion on failed wars in the last decade and we were the aggressor/invader in every case.
We've gone bankrupt but it's not because of Defense spending. Take a look at the budget over the last 50 years.
Morons is all I think. Easily deceived, media manipulated mental mind bending at its' finest and you are the star of the class, as far as I can tell. Your cerebral sponge sucks up everything so you don't have to see reality, eh?
I have no doubt you think like that. Next time though try harder and you'll see your name on your own list.

My brain sucks up common sense and logic. Fairy tales and fantasy land have no room. Unlike the leftist brain.
 
SOUND FAMILIAR?

CORPORATISM
Corporatism
"Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved the management of sectors of the economy via government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, in theory, represent its professional concerns, especially through negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This approach, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was used in specific instances of silencing opposition and rewarding political loyalty."

You've just described what Barrack Obama has been doing since he came to power.

Did you familiarize yourself with Communism?
 
cor·poc·ra·cy kôr-pkr-see)
n. pl.cor·poc·ra·cies
1. A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.

2. An inefficient corporation characterized by excessive layers of management

corpocracy - definition of corpocracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

not only do we have a burgeoning fed'l gov't, we are also the victim of plutocratic rule; wherebye the "1%'rs" have a huge share of the money,
and leverage that power politically to protect their interests.

we could cut the entanglement of defense contractors (General Dynamics, et all) to the Pentagon, the revolving door of lobbiests from gov't.
I call it an 'incestuous relationship' in that the breeding is sub-par, and..well.. too close in familiarity.

The Osprey was a case in point, but there are a zillion examples.

when you have this huge military, you are tempted to use it.
To get back to Vietnam the same mindset of the Cold War whereby we immediately conflated Vietnam
with security threats in Eurpore, or our hemisphere; is being played out today.

we like to meddle in world affair, and to do so, one needs a superior military. It becomes self -fufilling, a bigger military, for more meddling;
more meddling requires a bigger ( or new weapon systems) - which is perpetual war mindset.
 
not only do we have a burgeoning fed'l gov't, we are also the victim of plutocratic rule; wherebye the "1%'rs" have a huge share of the money,
and leverage that power politically to protect their interests.

we could cut the entanglement of defense contractors (General Dynamics, et all) to the Pentagon, the revolving door of lobbiests from gov't.
I call it an 'incestuous relationship' in that the breeding is sub-par, and..well.. too close in familiarity.

The Osprey was a case in point, but there are a zillion examples.

when you have this huge military, you are tempted to use it.
To get back to Vietnam the same mindset of the Cold War whereby we immediately conflated Vietnam
with security threats in Eurpore, or our hemisphere; is being played out today.

we like to meddle in world affair, and to do so, one needs a superior military. It becomes self -fufilling, a bigger military, for more meddling;
more meddling requires a bigger ( or new weapon systems) - which is perpetual war mindset.

Some good points and i believe it's true that the American taxpayer has been contributing too much to international security with the rest of the free world not contributing it's fair share. This is especially true in Europe.

But because the US had fewer social programs they had the money to pay for these programs whereas now that they have Obamacare, and no doubt more government involvement in the formerly free market on the way, we will see the decline in military expenditures also, and of course the previous standards of living. This transition will need some adjustments for sure. Other countries, including Canada, are already adjusting to the possibility of a weak US economy but the democracies must also adjust to the fact that the US will become far less influential internationally also, and we can see that happening now.

The sad fact is that the democracies must be prepared to protect themselves from various ideologies which blossom from time to time and the US has been doing much of 'the world's policing' on that front. A new order following the new reality should be discussed soon, if its not being done already. It seems that France is prepared to take on a leadership role among the world's democracies and often they've been very effective in working things out.
 
LOL. Nice failed attempt to lump everything together as the USA being the aggressor in each and every case. When excluding all the countries you listed that truly did not meet your "aggressor" standard, really what we're left with is two off your list. Haiti and Libya. And if we do a really big stretch, Libya falls off the list as well. Our actions in all the other you listed were the result of the aggressive actions of listed country and the USSR or muslim terrorists.

And no, overall long term, war is not good for business. But it is a good thing we have a "war machine". If we didn't, we'd be dodging more bombs than we have. There is an old saying that applies to everyone (I don't know where it came from) and it is completely true. Here it is: "You may have no interest in war but it always has an interest in you". History proves that statement 100% correct.

Civil wars are not acts of aggression towards the USA.

War is good for many businesses, especially the ones that support our politicians.
 
Which civil wars did you have in mind?



Again, any specifics?

I was trying to think of any countries civil war that we became involved in the fighting that did not contain any aggressive acts toward the US. So far I come up empty but maybe I have overlooked one. But I kind of doubt it.
 
I was trying to think of any countries civil war that we became involved in the fighting that did not contain any aggressive acts toward the US. So far I come up empty but maybe I have overlooked one. But I kind of doubt it.

So it's kinda like one of those, y'know, fantasy things?
 
I was trying to think of any countries civil war that we became involved in the fighting that did not contain any aggressive acts toward the US. So far I come up empty but maybe I have overlooked one. But I kind of doubt it.
Libya.
we went in on supposed 'humanitarian reasons'
(even though NATO wound up dropping bombs on the city of Misrata - how does one humanely drop bombs?) but it was a civil war.

The NTC came from Bengazi/east Africa one of the sporadic uprising to overthrow Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was busily shelling their pick up trucks, until we decided to enforce the UN No Fly zone a bit more...shall we say agressively? :roll:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/24/998191/-How-Many-Libyans-has-NATO-Killed#
NATO sources say that more than 10,000 sorties have been flown over the oil-rich nation resulting in large-scale destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the reported deaths of 10,000 to 15,000 people.
The Qaddafi regime for it's part, has made much more modest claims. It was reported, July 14th:

On Wednesday, Libya’s prosecutor general accused NATO of killing 1,108 people and wounding another 4,500 and filed charges against the alliance’s chief in Libyan court.
Then there is Afganistan, sucked into that war because of the AQ training camps, but they didn't attack us.

We're in the Yemenise civil war, one could say we were attacked by the underware bomber.

And of course good old Vietnam, still can't figure out how they attacked us.
 
Last edited:
Libya.
we went in on supposed 'humanitarian reasons'
(even though NATO wound up dropping bombs on the city of Misrata - how does one humanely drop bombs?) but it was a civil war.

The NTC came from Bengazi/east Africa one of the sporadic uprising to overthrow Qaddafi.
Qaddafi was busily shelling their pick up trucks, until we decided to enforce the UN No Fly zone a bit more...shall we say agressively? :roll:
Daily Kos: How Many Libyans has NATO Killed?
Then there is Afganistan, sucked into that war because of the AQ training camps, but they didn't attack us.

We're in the Yemenise civil war, one could say we were attacked by the underware bomber.

And of course good old Vietnam, still can't figure out how they attacked us.

I probably would agree with you on Libya. They were no threat to us or anybody else. However, the fact is they did in the past display aggressive acts against the US as Obama reminded us.

Afgan- forget about it. You are way off the mark.

Yemen-The Cole. Plus the carryover from all other muslim terror acts.

Vietnam-before we had the first combat unit in country, way before; two American service men were murdered by the VC in an attack directed from the North. Then again, the Gulf of Tonken. The first night was for real, the second is debatable.
 
I probably would agree with you on Libya. They were no threat to us or anybody else. However, the fact is they did in the past display aggressive acts against the US as Obama reminded us
Qaddafi supported terorism, but almost got blown up in his tent by Reagan, Qaddafi's wake up call.
Afgan- forget about it. You are way off the mark.
OK. not wanting to quibble

Yemen-The Cole. Plus the carryover from all other muslim terror acts.
true enough, AQAP is a nasty bunch, but our drones are ubiquitous.
we depend on Yemen ground forces to call them in, or fighters in their civil war. They are a bit jumpy in Sanaa, and it isn't from the coffee.
Yemen

Vietnam-before we had the first combat unit in country, way before; two American service men were murdered by the VC in an attack directed from the North. Then again, the Gulf of Tonken. The first night was for real, the second is debatable.
none of which required a fuill scale invasion by the US.
 
Which civil wars did you have in mind?



Again, any specifics?

1. Cuba, Viet Nam, Somalia, Philippines, Yemen, Nicaragua, El Salvador, after we invaded: Iraq and Afghanistan

2.

".....
10. United Technologies (UTX) -- aircraft, electronics, engines
Arm sales: $11.6 billion, total sales: $58.2 billion
Gross profit: $5.3 billion, total workforce: 199,900
United Technologies makes a wide range of arms — notably military helicopters, including the Black Hawk helicopter for the U.S. Army and the Seahawk helicopter for the U.S. Navy. The company was the biggest employer in the top 10 though arms sales accounted for just 20% of revenue. UTX also produces elevators, escalators, air-conditioners and refrigerators. International sales comprised 60% of the company's revenue in 2012.

[ranked #56 overall campaign donor http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php]

9. L-3 Communications (LLL) -- electronics
Arm sales: $12.5 billion, total sales: $15.2 billion
Gross profit: $956 million, total workforce: 61,000
Some 83% of L-3 Communications sales in 2011 came from arms sales, but this was down from what it sold the prior year. The company has four business segments: electronic systems; aircraft modernization and maintenance; national security solutions; and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Among many products manufactured, the company has become a major provider of unmanned aircraft systems.

8. Finmeccanica -- aircraft, artillery, engines, electronics, vehicles and missiles
Arms sales, $14.6 billion, total sales: $24.1 billion
Gross profit: $ -3.2 billion, total workforce: 70,470
Italian company Finmeccanica makes a wide range of arms, including helicopters and security electronics. Nearly 60% of the company's sales in 2011 were in arms. Finmeccanica lost $3.2 billion in 2011. The Italian company is currently fending off allegation that it paid bribes to win an approximately $750 million contract to provide 12 military helicopters to the Indian government in 2010. The then-head of the company, Giuseppe Orsi, was arrested in February but has denied wrongdoing. Other executives, including the head of the company's helicopter unit, have been replaced, and the company has delayed the release of recent financial results.

7. EADS -- aircraft, electronics, missiles and space
Arm sales: $16.4 billion, total sales: $68.3 billion
Gross profit: $1.4 billion, total workforce: 133,120
The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), based in the Netherlands, had sales in 2011 roughly in line with the prior year. Arms sales comprised just 24% of the company's revenue. EADS and BAE Systems unsuccessfully attempted to merge for $45 billion in 2012, which would have created the world's largest aerospace company. The deal collapsed in October after German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed concerns about the merger.

6. Northrop Grumman (NOC) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, ships, space
Arm sales: $21.4 billion, total sales: $26.4 billion
Gross profit: $2.1 billion, total workforce: 72,500
Northrop Grumman's 2011 arms sales comprised about 81% of total sales even after a sharp decline in arms sales year over year. The company attributed the decline to reduced government spending on defense projects. Nevertheless, the company was more profitable than in the prior year.

[Ranked #58 largest donor $19,217,280 1989-2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php]
 
5. Raytheon (RTN) -- electronics, missiles
Arm sales: $22.5 billion, total sales: $24.9 billion
Gross profit: $1.9 billion, total workforce: 71,000
Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass., is one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. The company makes the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, among others. Arms sales comprised about 90% of the company's sales in 2011 though they as a total they were lower than in the prior year. The slide hasn't let up. Total sales in 2012 fell 1.5%, and Raytheon is expecting sales to fall 3% in 2013, a projection which doesn't take into account the effects of mandated budget cuts. The company can rely on overseas customers to somewhat offset weak sales at home. As of January, approximately 40% of the company's backlog was booked overseas. The company expects approximately a 5% increase in international sales in 2013.

[Ranked #68 largest donor $16,699,598 1989-2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php]

4. General Dynamics (GD) -- artillery, electronics, vehicles, small arms, ships
Arm sales: $23.8 billion, total sales: $32.7 billion
Gross profit: $2.5 billion, total workforce: 95,100
With 18,000 transactions in 2011, General Dynamics was the third-largest contractor to the U.S. government. Of those contracts, approximately $12.9 billion worth went to the Navy, while an additional $4.6 billion went to the Army. The company's arms sales in 2011 comprised 73% of total sales. Arms sales in 2011 were slightly below 2010 levels. The company makes a host of products, including electric boats, tracked and wheeled military vehicles, and battle tanks. The company announced layoffs in early March, blaming mandated federal budget cuts.
[Ranked 368 overall donor $562,933 http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php]

3. BAE Systems -- aircraft, artillery, electronics, vehicles, missiles, ships
Arm sales: $29.2 billion, total sales: $30.7 billion
Gross profit: $2.3 billion, total workforce: 93,500
BAE Systems was the largest non-U.S. company based on arms sales. Arms sales represented 95% of the company's total sales in 2011 even though they were lower as a total of overall sales compared to the prior year. The products BAE sells include the L-ROD Bar Armor System that shields defense vehicles and the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer that provides sophisticated simulation training for military pilots. In 2013, the company said its growth would likely come from outside the U.S. and Great Britain — its home market. BAE noted that its outlook for those two countries was "constrained," likely due to the diminished presence in international conflicts and government budget cuts.

2. Boeing (BA) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Arm sales: $31.8 billion, total sales: $68.7 billion
Gross profit: $4 billion, total workforce: 171,700
Boeing was the second-largest U.S. government contractor in 2011, with about $21.5 billion worth of goods contracted. The Chicago-based company makes a wide range of arms, including strategic missile systems, laser and electro-optical systems and global positioning systems. Despite all these technologies, just 46% of the company's total sales of $68.7 billion in 2011 came from arms. Boeing is the largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world, making planes such as the 747, 757 and recently, the 787 Dreamliner. The company is also known for its space technology — Boeing had $1 billion worth of contracts with NASA in 2011.

[ranked #60 largest donor $21,053,012 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php]

1. Lockheed Martin (LMT) -- aircraft, electronics, missiles, space
Arm sales:$36.3 billion, total sales: $46.5 billion
Gross profit: $2.7 billion, total workforce, 123,000
Lockheed Martin notched $36.3 billion in sales in 2011, slightly higher than the $35.7 billion the company sold in 2010. The arms sales comprised 78% of the company's total 2011 sales. Lockheed makes a wide range of products, including aircraft, missiles, unmanned systems and radar systems. The company and its employees have been concerned about the effects of the "fiscal cliff" and sequestration, the latter of which includes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the fall of 2012, the company planned on issuing layoff notices to all employees before backing down at the White House's request."
[Ranked #32 largest donor $26,405,806 1989-2012 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php]

10 companies profiting the most from war
 
Vietnam vets will never accept and apology from this woman. She should be charged and tried as a traitor to this country......what she said and did is inexcusable May she rot in hell..

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' | Fox News

Get over it. It was decades ago, by a young person who has since said she made a bad mistake. Let whosoever has not sinned, cast the first stone.

If only everyone would recognize their mistakes they made when they were young and stupid, the world would be a better place.
 
Back
Top Bottom