Ok, never argued the "war for oil" thesis.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Profit of War
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Ok, never argued the "war for oil" thesis.
Augustus
…
What did you mean by the above then?
The notoriously honest and ethical Putin who, like George Washington, could never tell a lie or a bit of a fib or even be somewhat economical with the truth?
Heyo
Veteran Member
That may or may not be the case. (And at that time there was no effective threat, the eastern expansion was already a fact.)
And there was the annexation of Crimea before, the reaction to that was almost "meh". But with rolling out the military and marching on Kyiv was a step too far.
I agree with Eisenhower, and his words were prophetic. But if there ever was a reason to support a warring party in the last 60 years, the attack on Ukraine is on top of the list.
Sure, there is always a reason to be found somewhere to support a warring party. That's how this all continues to work.
That if anyone was really interested in helping Palestine, they could help the Palestinians develop their own natural resources.
Along with Yeltsin, Gorbachev and many individuals within the US state department for the last 30 or so years. I got lots of evidence, what have you got?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not if only defending parties are supported.
Same thing Putin tells his people.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Do they believe him? He started the war.
Methinks you're oversimplifying.
And not addressing the common claim that arms makers
control government to create conflict for profit. This is
utterly unsupported, & a poor explanation for US
involvement in these 2 conflicts.
Weapon manufactures do indeed profit from weapon sales.
But this isn't inherently wrong at all.
- The reasons for buying the weapons are to benefit countries
defending themselves, dubious though it be regarding Israel.
- If government instead of private companies made the arms,
it would still be roughly the same amount of economic activity.
Although it would cost the taxpayer more if government did it.
- If someone makes weapons, it's never done for free. Assuming
that we need weapons, then it is moral to make them.
I believe this. And even as a felonious draft dodger, I designed
weapon systems....not recently though.
In Russia's view, it's to take territory.
In short....
Duh.
In Ukraine's view, it's to defeat the invader.
The war otherwise has wrecked their country & economy.
Or....are you arguing that leaders in Ukraine want Russia to
continue the invasion for the profit of someone controlling
the leaders?
In USA's view, it's useful to stop Putin's plan to march
across Europe in conquest. Disincentivizing him now
will save blood & money later.
Are you opposing self defense by war, & aiding allies
because some parties make money?
Count your lucky stars. I considered going on further
with more issues. But I'm feeling charitable today.
Last edited:
It's a long article with print small for old eyes.
Could you cull portions that support the contention
that arms makers guide our foreign policy?
If you're claiming a conspiracy with them at the
helm, I'd like to see evidence stronger than
merely profiting from war.
As for their lobbying government for contracts,
I've some insight, having worked for Northrop
(F18 flight controls) & for Flight Refueling (KC135).
Augustus
…
I think the US has been unnecessarily antagonistic in its foreign policy.
But that doesn’t mean it is entirely to blame or that things would have been peaceful if they had simply let Russia have its own way.
You can always say “they started it, it’s not our fault”.
The fact remains we have no idea what would have played out if the US had said “we won’t interfere in East Europe”.
We don’t know what would happen if the West refused to offer protection to countries from the former Eastern Bloc. Maybe they form a collective defence pact among themselves. Maybe Russia doesn’t like that either and feels “threatened”.
So to say “there would never have been a war” is just empty speculation that assumes the essential benevolence of Russia absent US “provocation”.
I would say the same of the speculation that any particular war is necessary.
What I can said for sure however is that we know there exist companies that profit from the conflict between nations.
That people in the federal government and the Pentagon have a vested interest in these company.
As long as you feel there is a threshold to be passed to justify war, mass media is around to help support the belief that threshold has been met.
Russian has for the last 34 years been saying don't cross this line. People in our own government have warned that if we cross that line there will be consequences. Western European countries and the US have in the past ignored and continue to ignore these warnings. What all of these people have been predicting for he last 34 years has come to pass.
The point is Russia is not benevolent any more than the US is. It drew a line in the sand and just like the US it needs the world to take what it says seriously.
Enough do that allows him to stay in power.
It is not that hard to manipulate the masses. The fact of religion should prove that.
Well, that settles it.
The most recent surge in concern about Chinese military power was sparked by the
Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which targeted “great power rivalry” as the
greatest threat to U.S. security and global influence.87 The NDS was followed a year later by
the Congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Commission, which rang an even
louder alarm bell about the purported threat from China and proposed 3 to 5 percent
annual growth in the Pentagon budget to address it. These threats were touted, alongside
rather than instead of existing perceived challenges like global terrorism and regional
powers like North Korea and Iran.88 Nine of the 12 members of the commission had direct
or indirect ties to the arms industry, a reality that no doubt had some influence over their
deliberations and conclusions.
Sorry about the length but it is not easy to get a grasp of the situation in just a few sentences.
No, in fact I'd imagine it'd be best to keep the people at the helm in the dark as much as possible. You just need enough infiltration of those that advise the people at the helm.
Well, that settles it.
Like I said in a later post, many have said the same on both side over the past 34 years. Even before Putin came into power.
You don't think after 24 years of making this proclamation that Putin needing to "save face" is part of the equation?
The quoted portion only claims "ties" to the industry.
This is suggestion of possibility.
It is not even evidence, let alone proof of anything.
Conspiracy theories work only when the conspiracy
is exposed with a smoking gun. All you have is a
faint whiff of smoke at best.
I know there is corruption in the industry. But the
only concrete evidence I've seen is bribery of
foreign officials. Sure, there is likely more.
But you shouldn't claim it without strong support.
Ok, lets see if this turns into a proxy war with China. That is what is predicted.
We've both be around long enough we will probable get to see how this plays out.
Just as it was predicted what would trigger the war in Ukraine.
You can't say the people who profit from war was not aware of this.
The folks in charge cannot make their decisions with 100% certainty of the outcome.
I don't see it being hard to weigh down the choices in a direction that benefits a particular industry especially considering the advisors involved come from that industry and along with 100s of lobbyist get compensation to do exactly that.
What I am saying is that this all was predicted 63 years ago.
Conspiracies only work when there is no smoking gun. All you really need is plausible deniability.
Also you can't look at individuals wars like Ukraine or Israel. You have to look at the pattern of warfare.
China is next in the pattern.
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
It doesn't prove a MIC conspiracy theory because
an alternative explanation with predictive power
is that voters elect leaders who support foreign
policy & military adventurism to support allies
(eg, Taiwan) & to keep enemies (eg, China) at bay.
And what constitutes a "proxy war"?
Is assisting Ukraine a proxy war against Russia
(per MIC conspiracy theorists), or is it defense of
a country because it's worthy & also a bulwark
against further Russian conquest in the region?
"Proxy war" be read into just about any conflict
if one ignores alternative motives.
Who made a specific prediction (before Russia
began mobilizing men & materiel for it)?
Awareness isn't the same as causing.
What I see is voters who refuse to take responsibility
for electing hawks. They blame nefarious conspiracies
for leaders making war. Both parties in their primaries
rejected the peaceniks for the likes of Obama, Hillary,
Genocide Joe, & Dozing Donny.
Conspiracy theorists claim the voters have no say because
the dark forces control the media. Yet I saw mainstream
media providing info to discern who is more hawkish
than whom.
The same predictions can be made based upon voter
preferences for electing & re-electing hawks.
Conspiracies are indeed possible.
But one can't leap to belief just because something
will confirm that bias. Example...
I hear conservatives say that Marxists control our
government to take God out of government &
society...to impose ever more liberal agendas.
Their theory has verifiable predictions too.
Duh.
You prefer the MIC conspiracy explanation for wars.
But were it so, USA would have far more military
adventurism in Africa, which is very ripe for conflict.
I see other factors, eg...
Religion fueling Israel's genocide.
Religion fueling USA's assisting genocide.
Conquest fueling Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Conquest fueling China's conquest of Tibet, Taiwan, & S China Sea.
Even USA's conquest of other countries had better explanations,
eg, taking or controlling territory (eg, Philippines), vengeance (eg,
Afghanistan), nation building (eg, Iraq).
Now here's the part where I'll become particularly offensive.
I believe that liberals blame the MIC conspiracy because....
1) They want no responsibility for wars their leaders wage.
2) They blame arms makers because of anti-capitalist sentiment.
3) It's simple & enticing. Every war has arms makers profiting.
So confirmation bias is strong.
Last edited:
lukethethird
unknown member
Some posters here don't listen to what Putin says, they're too busy putting their own words into Putin's mouth. Nato got the war it wanted with Russia, and it has nothing to do with winning anything, it's all about selling arms and turning profits. It's a win win for everyone except for Ukrainians and Russians.