War Is a Racket (1933)
man.fas.org
man.fas.org
It means concealing the origins of illicitly generated revenue.
War is definitely a racket but that racket isn't money laundering. The racket isn't about obfuscating the origin of the money but to direct it to certain parties
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 really only one solution to DC's warmongering - someone needs to be held accountable for constantly lying and sleepwalking the US into wars. And not the weapons manufacturers, the actual politicians who are pretending that they didn't realise there were billions-to-trillions being sunk into blowing up taxpayer dollars to kill random goat herders.
The public seems pretty peaceful, anti-war rhetoric has been doing well for a while. They just keep getting distracted by political issues (which are obvious distractions if you look at them in context of the US's defence & fiscal policies).
That is the status quo. USA military has not won a war in my parents' lifetimes. USA military is optimized to consume resources, not to accomplish traditional military objectives.
(So I think that calling both of them victories is reasonable. If you want, you can also call both of them failures. But it seems a bit weird to call one a victory and the other not.)
There are many ways for this to happen, and all of them occur (to some degree) simultaneously and the impact is cumulative.
The result is that you cannot create a lasting solution by addressing one side of the equation or the other. You have to address them both, simultaneously, or the system will form again for exactly the reasons if formed before.
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.
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.
I'm forever whingeing on HN about this. The real problem is that much of the citizenry has lost faith and trust in its leaders and in many of its longstanding institutions and rightly so given the never-ending scandals.
We need a new covenant - a formal undestanding - between the Government and the people but I, like millions of others, have little clue where to begin.
It never ceases to amaze me how citizens of the USA place the vast majority of sympathy to their beloved “troops” and barely any on those who actually get invaded.
Never noticed how topics switch over time depending on what's in the news? That's what people talk about! News switches the main topic, people switch the main topic. The old topic becomes forgotten and it does so quickly.
If you take a closer look, you'll even see that they talk about the thoughts they've read, in the perspective they've received read them. I have little reason to assume it's not like this everywhere.
There will always a part who disagrees, but it will always be a minority compared to the masses, which creates beneficial controversy and keeps people arguing.
I've found more and more places where people, under the umbrella of doing good, dictate what's allowed to be said. Often it's not even the actual admins of the channels, but a mob of people outraged-on-behalf-of-others. Powerhungry assholes.
Iraqi deaths? Estimated to be between 400,000 and 1,000,000. That doesn't include deaths that will follow for decades from lasting damage and the instability that followed in the region and continues to this day.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-do...
that's a particularly nasty thing to be lobbing around. The shell that just keeps on shellin' long after the war is over.
I believe that the toxicity of DU comes from its properties as a heavy metal, same as lead, rather than from being radioactive. [0]
[0] Chemical DNA damange effect is a million times higher than radiological according to this: https://zenodo.org/record/1259849
It’s sad, but not specifically American.
(That said, I always use the number of Iraqi deaths when arguing that GWB is the worst president of all time.)
Yes - but don't confuse average people in the street with the ra-ra'ing media. Especially in war situations, it is the media's job to propagandise the populace, and ensure that 'the people' are behind whatever it is they are doing. Dissenting opinions will not get any air.
Why should the weapons manufacturers be left out while oil companies, mercenary corps, and construction/logistics companies get all of the action? "Everybody" deserves their place at the feeding trough.
War Is a Racket (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255 - Jan 2020 (181 comments)
War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136 - April 2019 (1 comment)
War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641 - Nov 2016 (152 comments)
War Is a Racket (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553 - March 2016 (167 comments)
War Is A Racket, Major General Smedley Butler (1935) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856 - Nov 2010 (3 comments)
Ironic considering that FDR's economic reforms were openly modeled on fascist Italy, and FDR was on good terms with Mussolini. He was also in the process of following Mussolini's lead and attempting to overthrow the American institutions that were in his way. He had already gone out of his way to install a KKK member on the Supreme Court, and was planning to double the size of the Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes.
The article even admits this by quoting articles written at the time that were calling for a fascist takeover of the country and supporting FDR's goals in this direction. Many were terrified that this was indeed what FDR was planning.
This whole thing about Butler coming out and saying it was the other way around, and fascists were tying to overthrow FDR was just a political point scoring. This article even admits that if something like that even happened it was at best a “a cocktail putsch.”
This is just the typical rewriting of history from people who refuse to face their ashamed past.
There are indeed several aspects to it:
- suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence
- a nationalist/religious/wtv ideology portaying anyone discussing orders as a dangerous enemy (dividing the people in the name of unity)
- the will to at least temporarily ignore the rules of normal, consensual arbitration within the society, to face dangerous times (for the ruling class, thus their initial approval/encouragements).
- to various degrees, the new regime goes out of hands and also ends up terrorizing the ruling class.
Many different movements/regimes in history matched with several of those points. Many military coups are called "fascist" despite they lack the "mob violence" aspect, relying instead on the support on some external army's paratroopers. And many exceptional regimes ignoring past laws temporarily to face a dire situation are also labeled as "fascist", despite they make little use of violence.
Fascism is a very specific political ideology, based on Marxism, and involves (what they call a third-way economic policy) transforming the state into an amalgamation of trade unions working together to create a socialist state. It does not have different meanings to different people. It has only one meaning. The problem is just that many people refuse to know what the word means because it is a dirty word and they don't like how similar it is to their own ideology.
>There are indeed several aspects to it: - suppression of labor unions and other political organisations that go against the interests of the ruling class, using mob violence
This is the exact opposite of fascism. Not only were trade unions the center of the fascist state, but it was mandatory for people to be a member of one.
I was going to go over your other points, but they are so vague that I can't really even discuss them.
Fascism explicitly opposes Marxism, and "trade unions" under fascism were simply fascist-run organizations designed to suppress labor power. The Italian fascists banned non-fascist trade unions, and the fascist "union" was essentially run by the employers' association.
FDR was scheduled to address the American Legion (mostly WW1 veterans), an organization supported by conservative money and in the middle of most of the conspiracy allegations, at its convention at the end of September and start of October of 1933. An early draft of his remarks had him asking the veterans to serve as paramilitary reserve police to maintain civil order in the face of a collapsing economy. But he killed the whole idea, pivoting to be a much kinder and gentler middle-of-the-road kind of a guy. He was hitting his stride with no reasons to be tyrranical.
Where you from, partner?
Or on things he had done in New York State as governor.
> Supreme Court if they wouldn't accept his unconstitutional changes
His changes, and the Congress's changes, which the American people had overwhelmingly supported in his 1936 reelection where he won by overwhelming margins which almost decimated GOP representation in DC.
Also with Roberts switch in time that saved nine, the Supreme Court accepted many of the reforms.
FDR had reduced judge pensions, which kept the GOP judges on the bench longer and gave them an axe to grind. He did not have to act like Mussolini he could have just broke his campaign promise about judge pensions and have seen a lot of retirements by 1936.
The US never came anywhere near the conditions that gave rise to fascism in Italy and Germany.
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 to teach recruits before they enter the military that war is not only a racket but also it will be the most horrible and devastating experience of their lives.
The fact is, it's impossible to put an old head onto young shoulders.
In that sense I'm not a pacifist (I once had a unform on but I was lucky to avoid major trouble). If you've ever experienced the system and mil training it's impossible to unlearn it.
That's the extreme case, at what point on a sliding scale the options change is moot and subject to vigouos debate. That's where things become complicated, not far down the scale you'll be faced with a serious moral dilemma.
Let me give you a few well-known countries and you can think about whether there are any parallels between them and Afghanistan.
1 England: the English Civil War (very simplified description). The terrorists as we would call them nowadays [the Parliamentarians] won and King Charles I was executed. The people that now rule the UK have inherited the system of government originally set up by those victors. (Yes, there have been changes but we've stopped executing kings).
If we had Dr Who's Tardis and took a modern army back to restore the monarchy (the then rightful heir to the throne King Charles), then would this be a legitimate exercise?
2. What about that rebel mob of colonies in the US led by Washington in 1776? They defied the rightful King of Great Britain an Ireland, George III, and many, many people on both sides died during their act of succession.
3. Then there's the American Civil War/The War Between the States. It can be argued strongly that Lincoln started the war; and or did nothing to stop it or defuse the tense situation between the time of his victory in the polls and that of his inauguration.
In the process of saving the Union Lincoln started a war that killed more Americans than in all other wars that the US has fought in ever since - Spanish, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc. Like Pontus Pilate, he sat on his hands and did nothing to stop it.
It can be argued that by 1860 slavery was on the decline world wide and that given several more decades the South would have been forced to abandon slavery due to pressure, sanctions, from other countries such as the UK. A trade embargo on Southern cotton would have bitten the South very hard.
In the grand scheme off things, Lincoln could now be classed as a war criminal for starting a war that killed somewhere between 600,000 and a million people. Do the utilitarian equation - was that number of lives worth it when waiting a decade or two may have seen the same outcome? When you consider the inequlity and illtreatment that negros have had in the intervening 150+ years since the War then the answer may not be so obvious.
Today, current rulers in Washington are the beneficiaries of both of those conflicts. Thus one could ask the question about how legitimate is their rule nowadays (many Southerners would still probably question the victor's legitimacy).
4. 1789 France. The French Revolution culminated in the execution of the legitimate king of France Louis XVI in the Place de la Concorde by mob of essentially out of control 'terrorists'.
What followed was The Reign of Terror (la Terreur) - barbarism, death and destruction beyond anything seen since the Crusades of the 12th and 13th Centuries and not equalled again until the Nazis came to power in the 1930s.
The current government of France has inherited many aspects of that violent revolution and now claims legitimacy to rule the country as a republic instead of a kingdom.
5. The same goes for the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the murder of the legitimate czar of Russia, Czar Nicolas.
I hear everyone saying hey, hey now. However, think about it for a moment, most of our governments today have their historical routes in one form of insurgency or revolution or another. Governing the world is no easy matter and it's always been thus.
I'm not here to argue one way or other except to say you're correct about Afghanistan but then that's only correct inasmuch as to who one considers to have legitimacy. My view is that the poor longsuffering ordinary people of Afghanistan should be allowed to live and run their lives as they see fit without hindrance and interference. But then that's taking the naïve view and it's certainly not the current reality.
Yes, terrorism is alive and well Afghanistan but it was also the case in Vietnam with the Vietcong. Now, that's all over and friendship has been restored between the belligerents. Trouble is that two million people had to die in the process.
Afghanistan has had a rotten time for much of its existence, especially so since the British tried to tame the country in the 19th Century.
Many of the troubles in the Middle East in the 20th Century can be traced back to the dissolution and break up of the Ottoman Empire after WWI together with interference from Western countries, the UK, France etc. Problems that arose from those ill-considered policies which were forced on those countries more than a centuary ago are still with us today. For example, the 1917 Balfour Agreement was a well meaning but somewhat failed attempt to sort out the Jewish-Arab problem in that area of the world and it is still in an unmitigated mess today.
Whenever grand political policies are introduced always expect there'll be fallout from them for hundreds of years to come.
1) > Pretty simple really!
2) > That's the big problem!
At all but the most superficial level you'll find armed conflict motivations over all of human civilizations isn't "pretty simple really" and you'll find there are a lot of "that's the big problem's". Trying to reduce a topic as big as armed conflict in human history to a single idea of "just" or "unjust" isn't a particularly insightful or explanatory approach.
Why is it that so often it happens that if one comments on some topic or other then others automatically assume that one's of a certain belief and or that one belongs to some group or organization? I'd suggest that this likely shows a more narrowed thinking on behalf of those responding to the comment than it does of the comment's originator.
Often, in the grand scheme of things, the unfortunate outcome is that many people self-censor themselves to avoid being criticized or being in the spotlight.
This is very undesirable as it can shut down important debate.
...you'll find armed conflict motivations over all of human civilizations isn't "pretty simple really"
I have said in posts to this HN story and also in posts to other HN stories about similar matters that these issues are complex. Translation: I do NOT believe these issues are "pretty simple really". I have never said that either here or elsewhere.
From what I said, it ought to have been crystal clear that my comment about armed conflict were my own views and that I had no doubt about them in my own mind. I did not say that the view as presented were some universal understanding or edict. Had it been so then I've have spelt that out with references.
"2) > That's the big problem!"
The first issue is that I did not use the words just or unjust in the above post and by saying that I can only assume that you either didn't fully read what I had written and or that you hadn't read the full thread up to this point.
Nor did I reduce the idea to a single argument (I cannot conceive how you read that into what I had written). The point I was making was (and is) abundantly clear, which is that whether a political cause or action has 'legitimacy' or not is dependent on who actually holds that view—and not that that view is fixed in the firmament as if by some divine right. Like Lorentz transformations in Relativity, one's worldview depends on when and where one is standing (i.e.: one's specific circumstance).
I then went on to give you the reader a number of important—in fact, very significant—examples from history where key protagonists had a very different worldview to their [then] ruling establishments and because they were all successful winners in conflicts with their respective establishments, then their worldview ultimately prevailed, that is, over time (and for many and varied reasons), their respective positions in today's world have been 'legitimized'.
I even went as far as to ask and question whether such 'legitimization' was justified in today's world (i.e. with the para commencing: 'If we had Dr Who's Tardis and took a modern army back to restore the monarchy...').
Frankly, I do not know how I could have been clearer given the restrictions of a HN post. Sure, I acknowledge that, with time, I could have chosen my words more carefully but then I'm no Shakespeare, nor do I have his ability to paraphrase the way he does. I even plead guilty to not having properly proofread my post with sufficient rigor—hence my failing to correct the misspelling of 'century', however I'd excuse this given the fact that I was posting from a smartphone under somewhat adverse conditions.
So how pedantic should one be in submitting a post to HN? For example, given HN's international readership, should one's pedantry extend as far as having to explain the differences in spelling between British and American English and or the way hyphenations differ between both version of the language just to ensure absolute accurate interpretation by one's readers? I would certainly think not. (If you haven't already noticed, I'm guilty of intermixing both aspects of language with considerable inconsistency and indiscretion in that post, moreover I was aware of doing so at the time).
Back to my examples: each case ought to be well known to most HN readers, therefore one automatically has to make make assumptions about what the average HN reader knows about said subject matter (after all, they are responding to a story within a specific context so one has to assume they have some knowledge about the matter).
Moreover, one must assume the average HN reader has a certain (base) level of knowledge of those events, which, on average, would not be overly deep (if one had to explain the background information and history from first principles for every case then one would get endlessly bogged down in a minutiae of details. Not only would space not permit such a post but even if it did then most readers would never bother to read it.
Let's be clear about this: when posting comment about any involved matter one has no option other than to compromise and put limits upon what one has to say, and, by necessity, that significantly limits the scope and extent of what one is able to cover.
Here, even if one were truly expert and knowledgeable with respect to said events—and I'm making no such claim in respect of myself—then to cover them in sufficient detail in order that the reader would gain a full understanding of them simply isn't possible. To do so, the reader would have to study many tomes of information related to each example at an academic level, which in volume would well exceed the size of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire many times over. Furthermore, the reader would also need to be versed in political philosophy to a reasonably sophisticated level. (I say that as one who once studied the subject as a subset of the main its discipline not to mention having studied history. Even then, I would never claim great expertise in these matters). That said, in this case such level of expertise is completely unnecessary as I am only stating the undisputed historical facts (as opposed to the myriads of disputed minutiae).
Ipso facto, such in-depth understating is not necessary to comprehend the point I was making.
Moreover, lecturing detailed points to HN readers serves little purpose (although I admit that it's sometimes hard to avoid). Doing so is likely to only alienate the average HN reader as it is an insult to his or her intelligence (HN readers being smarter than most). Also, grinding points overly fine serve little purpose, if a HN reader doesn't know a particular point then there's always Wiki to fall back upon.
That said, I always try to make my posts as explicit and unambiguous as is possible, and if you look back at my past efforts then you'll find that many of them are overly long specifically for that reason.
Even then, I accept that my attempts can fail as was recently brought home to me in a big way when on the matter of a COVID issue I replied to someone who had earlier offered a critical reply to what I had posted. Unfortunately, he was one of those increasing numbers people who are completely immune to facts. In my reply I provided him with additional evidence in support of my argument by way of undisputed facts (authoritative scientific references commonly agreed upon by experts in their relevant fields) only for him to further respond to effect that I could not have made such comments unless I possessed certain wartime and pre-war German sympathies (out of politeness I will not repeat what he said herein).
As you'd expect, HN quickly deleted his comment including my very retrained reply which also included my denial of such accusations. (In my reply I also mentioned that despite his unwarranted criticism of me, I was not going to attempt to flag his comment (and I did not) – and that it should stand as is as a testament to his view.)
As I see it, if one dares to comment online then one must come to accept such unwarranted criticism from time to time.
You may not have the chance to run away as you'll be forced to stay, like it or not. We saw that played out many times in WWI, WWII and in Vietnam where conscription was rife and the rules of the draft were essentially inviolate and not negotiable.
I know from personal experience, I opposed the Vietnam and was drafted anyway much to my chagrin (I won't bore you with details as they're not relavant here).
However, the Vietnam War was not one of those conflicts to which I was referring above. This is why there was so much opposition to it. Simply, it was hubris and false logic on the part of those governments involved and that's only a tiny fraction of the story.
Where a war is not 'legitimate' (as I've defined above), I verily believe one has a moral duty to oppose it at every opportunity. However, that's much easier said than done. One should never lose sight of the fact that armies have been recruiting for millennia and they know evey trick in the book. Feigning illness, etc.in an attempt to escape is often extremely difficult.
There's always the conscientious objetion route but that too can be an unusually difficult path.
As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I believe there is an extreme case where one has no other option other than to fight, so I couldn't honestly argue conscientious objector case (perhaps I'm just a bad lier).
In the scenario where there's no other option, escaping to safety also has horrible drawbacks. First, you're leaving the dirty work for others thus increasing their burden, second if you have any conscience or moral fortitude then you'll live with that for the rest of your life. You may not think so now but you will later - perhaps many years later.
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...
My comment and your reply provide an excellent example of why it's so difficult to post an adequate reply in short HN posts (see my detailed reply to anm89 in response to a similar issue).
No doubt, self sacrifice can end up being noble in circumstances where such action contributes to an overall better outcome but that's not the general case with WWI. (Please, I know that statement is grossly inadequate and that in specific 'local' instances it's not even correct—given that many of those soldiers who made such hugely noble sacrifices did so in order to directly benefited their buddies—not the nation state that actually sent them to war – however that explanation will have to suffice for now.)
Whether Owen fully realized it or not, the reason why his poem is so often associated with the negative aspects of Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori is that in the real political context of the First World War it is an undisputed lie.
At the time, if the average soldier, French, German, English, US etc., etc. had been fully informed of the actual reasons for the start of said war—the horribly degenerate state of the underlying politics of the nation sates involved, the pathetically inept and inbred thinking of both English and European monarchies—just to mention a few, then these soldiers would likely have walked away from those hellish battlefields and left the fighting to the protagonists who actually stated the war.
In short, millions of lives were lost unnecessarily over inept and faulty reasoning and the many 'petty' squabbles that occurred at both domestic political levels and similarly with international politics wherein diplomacy failed most spectacularly with enormously disastrous and tragic consequences for just about everybody. Moreover, many of these issues were never fully resolved let alone properly handled at war's end—Versailles and all that—which, in the end, led to WWII and even many more millions of unnecessary deaths.
If ever there were a war to make Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori the ultimate lie then the First World War has to be its quintessential example (it's why I selected it as the example).
It would help if the US would actually teach history instead of pretend like it did not happen.
That's a worry. What kind? Those that put war in a negative light presumably.
"It would help if the US would actually teach history..."
The US isn't alone, many others do the same. The other worrying observation is that antiwar sentiment doesn't last more than a generation or so if that (the Vietnam generation was about as anti as it has gotten in my lifetime and come the 1980s/90s the feeling had almost totally dissipated).
And every single time there's been a look of revelation, if just a brief glimmer, as they realize the point I'm making.
Will it matter? Maybe. At some point one of them might be in a position to make better decisions about their fate and that of their subordinates. I do hope some random old guy saying "I hope they don't get you killed" certainly matters lot more than empty "thank you for your service" nonsense.
Yeah, let's hope it sinks in, but with some it can be too slow - after the event when they've PTSD.
I recall around the time I was drafted I occasionally got into discussion about these issues (it was never a big or oft repeated topic).
My current stance now has changed very little from my position back then. For some, the 'bravado' mob, perhaps 10% -15% of the platoon, took my position of war being the absolute last resort as me being 'yellow'. It never erupted into serious animosity but I was never part of their in group. Others thought similarly to me but wouldn't say much (or for that matter neither did I), still others said nothing.
The interesting aspect of this was that I developed these views very early when I was a child. My father and my uncles served in WWII and whilst the War was mentioned it was always a muted discussion and I learned quickly that there was something truly rotten about war - I sort of picked the notion up as if by osmosis.
I often wonder what the home environment of the 'bravado' mob was like. In one sense it can't have been too different to mine in that almost every father of kids in my school had also been in the War.
Perhaps it's one's temperament or personality in that I picked up the negative vibes whilst others did not.
I've often thought about it since but I can't say I'm any more informed now than in the past.
And Obama more than Bush. Either way, the direction is monotonically increasing. Could it be the problem isn't who holds the presidency?
I do think there's a chance that just having the capability is inherently corrupting. I guess we'll see how Biden does, though.
Now, I should perhaps qualify the above, since there are reasons to believe that Trump was not really able to get his way, foreign-policy-wise, due to military-intelligence-industrial complex objections, plus his defense secretary, head of the CIA etc (poor staffing which is mostly on him).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/27/eddie-gallag...
I'm not going to claim to be some geopolitical expert, but if you want to negotiate your way out of this mess it would seem to absolutely necessary to divert yourself away from the West (even partially) in order to come across as more autonomous. It would give talks much more credence rather than Russians seeing Ukraine as US puppets and not speaking for themselves.
"US warns Russian attack may be 'imminent,' Ukraine disagrees"
From President Volodymyr Zelenskyy down, the Ukrainian government has tried to urge calm, with senior officials making clear in recent days they don't see the risks now as any more heightened than over the last eight years of Russian-stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-warns-russian-attack-immi...
Here's a line that instantly disqualifies one from rational adult conversations about anything to do with Eastern Europe.
Hm, maybe i am not the one who is disqualified here.
Ya, so... you have a choice between the official propaganda agency of the US (the so-called "free press" all marching in lockstep), or the propaganda of the person responding to a completely made-up "imminent" invasion. The second propaganda source is in agreement with the person who is literally the president of the nation whose "imminent invasion" is in question.
There is no imminent invasion, only a deliberately provoked one.
Why tankies insist on defending a homophobic, right-wing dictatorship in Russia is just beyond me.
The buck stops at the US and Nato simply due to the size matches between the forces.
Ukrainians are very concerned right now.
For conventional business and trade, that is true. We're talking about war profiteers, a different type of businessman who profits from the churn.
(Genuine question, I honestly have no idea)
[1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/dod_cha...
That's less revenue for an entire industry than Apple or Walmart does per year.
So how exactly are you proposing that less than 6% of the economy is directing the other 94%. Because that doesn't make any sense. For that matter, if war is so profitable and defense such a good market, why have so many companies which used to have major defense business exited that business? In WW2 just about every big business was partaking in the war effort. Companies like Ford Motors was producing aircraft and tanks. Ford has long left defense, and what remaining companies are in the sector have been consolidating or dying. Not exactly the sign of a booming industry.
Wall Street banks (especially JP Morgan) had loaned huge amounts of money to England and France. They stood to suffer masses losses if the war didn't turn out favorably for them. On April 24th, 1917, only 8 days after the US entered the war, congress passed the Emergency Loan Act which sent hundreds of millions of dollars to England and France. The lion's share of this money was used to immediately make interest payments to JP Morgan.
>Morgan brokered a deal that positioned his company as the sole munitions and supplies purchaser during World War I for the British and French governments, bringing his company a 1% commission on $3 billion ($30 million). He was also a banking broker for financing to foreign governments both during and after the war.
>Morgan played a prominent part in financing World War I. Following its outbreak, he made the first loan of $12,000,000 to Russia.[6] In 1915, a loan of $500,000,000 was made to France and Britain following negotiations by the Anglo-French Financial Commission.[7] The firm's involvement with British and French interests fueled charges the bank was conspiring to maneuver the United States into supporting the Allies in order to rescue its loans. By 1915, when it became apparent the war was not going to end quickly, the company decided to forge formal relationships with France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Morgan_Jr.#World_War_I
Then there were the manufacturers and the farmers. Demand for goods, foodstuffs and merchandise of all kinds was a large part of what helped pull the moribund US economy out of a long period of economic distress that stretched all the way back to The Panic of 1907. England and French (borrowed) money was flooding into the coffers and US companies and US workers. A poor outcome for England and France would leave an uncertain future (at best) for the prospect of future exports for many companies.
There were other, non-economic factors to be sure, but much has been written about the influence that the banks and the business community had on pushing US entry into the 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 committee's gathering of testimony most major news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial falsely characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".
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.
It's so much easier for the Capitalists if there is a fascist in charge, because then such nonsense as just mentioned is tamped down, and the people can fend for themselves. Things are just more tidy and predictable.
What if there were only private health care, parks, libraries, school, elder care… but everybody was “rich” (enough to easily afford them all).
I don't think fully private healthcare works in practice. It disincentivizes cures and proactive treatment. It's also difficult or impossible to ensure you're getting a good price for emergency treatment. Empirically, public healthcare is cheaper and has better outcomes. I'm not wholly against some private higher-end care for those that want to pay, though.
Privatizing all land/parks sounds disasterous. There are some things we pay for that we don't expect to profit from monetarily. Our national and state parks, blm land, and libraries fit that bill.
Schools, yeah maybe. I'd push for a voucher system while still making school a requirement.
Social security, food stamps, etc. could all be rolled into direct cash payment. People having cash just doesn't solve the issues with having market incentives in places where it is detrimental, imo.
Obviously, this can't be captured in the limited "scale model" research economists do because a temporary UBI given to a small segment of the population is not comparable to a permanent and general UBI that landowners can fully exploit. In all the arguments I've seen for UBI, I've never seen someone address the issue of the response of the landowners without relying on full-blown communist control of prices by the government.
Even now, people can move out of expensive cities and into the hinterlands. A few weeks ago, we had a story here about a guy who worked himself up from blue-collar work to carpetbagging (his words) in a rural town. It's possible to do that for anyone on a reasonable salary, but most people choose not to. On a known stipend, the prices in those tiny towns will rise just the same; the incentives to do so are the same as those that keep them at their current level, after all.
The recent move to remote working is probably going to do a lot more for equalization and social/physical mobility than UBI ever would, simply because it gives people the option to opt out of life in major cities. That's something that UBI by itself could never do. People will still have the fear of losing everything, of spiralling into unrecoverable debt, of never actually owning the house that they live in and the car that they drive. Look at Social Security as an example. A monthly stipend does not stop the elderly from going homeless.
Policing is a racket in exactly the same way war is. It protects business interests under the guise of "justice".
What a load of shit.
Fascinating guy.
https://m.youtube.com /watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU
Said POTUS Obama in his 2016 State of the Union:
"The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined."
1) 7 of those 8 are allies 2) It might be the next 15 or 20 now, as the DoD budget has increased since.
"Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin." 3) Worked out well. 20+ years in Afghanistan. The lives. The money. And that's The Best?
>Obama in his 2016 State of the Union
The Armed forces he spoke of were a result of decades of investments of previous administrations. Obama's oversaw one of the most draconian defunding of the DoD in decades. The sequestration of the DoD budget cuts was devastating to readiness and has left the United States vulnerable for the 2020s. The PLA has grown at truly incredible speed since then. It now outnumbering the USN in the number of vessels. At the same time, the USN is retiring more ships than it's building. The United States is on track to lose a Taiwan Flashpoint.
I've seen a lot of the headlines spilling out of NY Times, WaPo, Fox, MSNBC, et al. and they're not arguing in favor of the US going to war with Russia. That's a very rare argument.
Almost exclusively the arguments are about how to respond after Russia invades Ukraine, in terms of the severity of sanctions. As well as if the US should be (or can) doing anything right now to dissuade Russia from invading.
I'm also seeing no common arguments in the US media in favor of a NATO war with Russia more broadly.
Go look at the home pages for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times. Where are all the arguments in favor of war with Russia? All I'm seeing is a lot of discussion about the context of Russia being on Ukraine's border and the odds they'll invade or not, and what non-war response will be appropriate afterward (including eg moving more US forces into other eastern NATO nations as support to the security of those nations).
Do the US media talk about how the US (via NATO) is, and has been for years, provoking Russia?
If you find the above outrageous, then the media has done a fine job, and the country is ready to go to war. No need to explicitly argue in favour of it.
What I hear from Western media is deep worry for the fates of these people who have become friends of the EU bloc. I work with Ukrainians daily. I am deeply worried they will be crushed beneath the tank treads of an authoritarian dictatorship. No one should have to suffer that fate. May they be free, happy and peaceful.
And claiming a political win when we're "miraculously" saved from ww3 by some last minute white house phone call.
The Ukranians seem to be downplaying the risk of invasion. Whether or not the US media wants a war, it may be the case that they've overestimated the likelihood of an invasion.
1. Russia moves blood supplies near Ukraine, adding to U.S. concern, officials say
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-russia-moves-...
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.
The goal of V. Poopking is to make billions for him and his friends in RF and Germany. For that, he needs Nord Stream 2 to work, so he needs to exchange something for Nord Stream 2. RF has weak economy, so it has nothing to propose in exchange, except safety from RF army.
If RF does not invade Ukraine, Germany will allow Nord Stream 2 to work, which is beneficial for both Poopking and his German partners. Goal achieved.
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.
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
armed forces of a country with a democratically elected civilian government
Last time Russia took over Ukraine, they genocided millions; It wasn't that long ago, either.
"They invaded 8 years ago"
hm ok. Do you know what a US color revolution is?
https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/03/11/pierre-omidyar-c...
Back in 2017, 69% of Ukrainian wants to join NATO[1].
It is Putin's own fascination that Ukraine should go back to Russia that starts all this mess[2].
Even if US has sponsored the color revolution, so what? Between two evils, choose the lesser one.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-nato-idUSKBN19V12... [2]: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
In this case, the United States can simply not invade. Then there will be no problem.
The problem is that Jen Psaki is going on television and telling the country a bold-faced lie. It is just a lie, that is all there is to it. Russia is not the aggressor. The United State is the aggressor.
No US invasion, no evil.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and created puppet state Abkhazia and South Ossetia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, US was not involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
US also not involved in the war in Donbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
If you cannot provide proof, then what you said are flat out lie.
So are you saying these satellite images are fabricated?
https://www.wsj.com/video/series/on-the-news/satellite-image...
Some have speculated that the war-pig plan is for certain fringe Ukrainian neo-Nazis who have received training in southern USA to commence a "reign of terror" against ethnic Russians in Donbas. Supposedly Putin will be unable to resist coming to the rescue. However, recent events in Artsakh have emphasized Putin's composure in such situations. American chatterers have poor mental models of Russian leadership.
Why is Kazakhstan no longer in the news?
"Among the members of the global alliance dedicated to destroying the American-led order, Iran is the most vulnerable. The job of the U.S. is to defang it." [0]
"With negotiations likely to fail, [Biden] better be prepared for a military strike [on Iran]." [1]
[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-russia-and-china-build-up-i...
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-moment-of-truth-in-iran-...
This is so intellectually dishonest. Ukrainian politicians are downplaying the Russian threat because they don't want their population to panic and flee the country.
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.)
If true, not all is as it appears. But then, in the day and age of propaganda, when is it?
"Tragedy and Hope" is the most important History / Political book of the 20th Century.
If you want to know how the world Really Works, this is your guidebook.
It's the same driving force: medical and journalist corporations making record profits.
Putin and Xi don't like to pay protection money. In fact, they'd rather be racketeers themselves [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-rus...
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.
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.
I’ve read memoirs. Some interesting ones about the Vietnam war and how every military higher-up was champing at the bit to throw more troops into the meatgrinder.
My “experience with” this is watching the military incinerate orders of magnitude more taxes than I will pay in my entire life on useless bullshit as I walk past dozens of homeless people a day. Like that $80-150 million plane they threw in the drink just the other day. Real good stuff!
We don't have wars because of ideas or justice, we have war because of the hard economic incentives of the powerful. The states mass surveillance isn't based on a corrupt evil, they do it to secure the interests of the powerful. We don't pay taxes solely because 'the states' or politicians want to take from us, they do it to pay subsidies and bailouts to industries.
This book is about capitalists, their state and how they use it to secure profit. To have capital is to have influence, so where are you when laws get written?
Soldiers who have never fought are less capable in battle. It doesn't really matter how much they train or how many drills are run. Nothing really prepares you for the trauma of watching your friend of many years die by getting his head blown off next to you, or worse, bleeding out while crying for his mother. There are two kinds of people who witness that: those who curl up and pray for it all to stop, and those who pick up their weapons and keep fighting. Generals never know which kind of men they have unless battles weed out the first kind, by death or discharge. And militaries with too many of the first kind lose wars.
Yes, it's horrible. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. We'd all be better off if we could resolve our conflicts without war. But in the world we live in, there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals. What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door?
Maybe you don't believe that the same irrational forces that first manifest as teenage graffiti, then grow into organized crime, could ever result in organizations the size of militaries. Maybe you don't believe that, in societies which have abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society. That's fine. I respect that. But what if you're wrong? Shouldn't society hedge that bet, considering the cost? Can no such hedge possibly justify its cost?
There's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line (i.e. cost) should be drawn, and what shape the line should take. But the opinion that it is worth it to pay some cost should be relatively uncontroversial. And if you understand that society should pay some cost to maintain an effective military, you ultimately understand that, until the diplomats can succeed at building a genuine global peace, war is inevitable.
Read: The world the USA maintains
> there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals.
A majority of which being: US forces per se, forces of US allies (NATO etc.), and forces of states which the US has paid off, extorted, or otherwise manipulated.
> What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door?
But what will "they" do when _you_ come knocking on _their_ door? And they can never 'prepare' to fend off the leading military power in the world.
There's also no point in positing counter-factual scenarios regarding WWII. If you want to imagine a world where the US rushed in and "saved" Europe early and prevents Pearl Harbor, you also have to imagine a world where US domestic support for Germany ultimately wins out and we end up supporting them.
But yes, colonial conflict before after WWII is probably more of a racket.
That said, the cold war didn't stayed cold -- which was nice. Credit NATO (maybe), to be fair NATO is probably also a racket for the military industrial complex (by making countries buy more F35s for example).
Maybe except the intervention in Korea
Europe's refusal to follow Wilson's Fourteen Points plan and instead punish Germany as hard as possible is what created WW2 in the first place. Exactly how many of Europe's messes was the US supposed to help clean up before saying "No more"?
Smedley Butler can stay forgotten as a footnote in the dusty annals of history.
The legacy of the most decorated marine in history will live on longer than yours or mine.
Personally, I'd like to just say thanks!
And hope you stick around to prevent us creating a new mess.. I think we'll be happy to purchase a few useless F35s in exchange :)
People like simplistic arguments for WW2. But the truth is that the terms given to Germany weren't that hash, certainly not as harsh as the terms imposed by Germany on Russia and Romania in the separate peace treaties before the end of the war.
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 invading Europe and Japan, public opinion still mattered. The lack of public support was a major factor in why USA did not engage sooner, Pearl Harbor put it over the top definitively.
I didn’t read anything into his speech about being against going to war under all situations.
The Nazi war machine was identical to the group of gangsters outlined in this talk: Integrated capitalist warfare by way of industrialists. His point applies perfectly well to that situation. It’s exactly what happened.
Once one side begins the process, there wasn’t much that could be done, have to respond in kind.
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.