Yerda
Veteran Member
I think he's broadly correct when he says that these people want to wage wars because it means greater profit for the enormous defence, security, aerospace firms. Is that controversial now that Trump has said it?
-
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!
Trump Embraces Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy Theory
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
And before Trump took office.
McBell
Unbound
It was controversial before Trump said it.
That it is controversial is the reason Trump is bringing it to front of attention.
It is merely a part of his election year gish gallop strategy.
Evidence?
I wonder....
Is everyone in the military just an ignorant dupe of the MICC?
Or do they march off to battle chanting....
It's off to war we're going!
So let the blood start flowing!
No need to win
Because we're in
it just to profit Boeing!
I don't blame the military for doing what it's ordered to do,
even if mistakes happen. However, individuals who commit
crimes & atrocities should be prosecuted.
If we don't want the military to obey leaders' orders, then
we need regime change. But it's clear the voters don't want
that. Hillary got the most votes in 2016. Biden will win in
2020. And both voted for the Iraq war as senators.
Not sure that I agree with Trump's assessment of the situation, but when stories come out about the military spending $10,000 on a hammer or $20,000 on a toilet seat, then I would suspect corruption. A friend of mine who was in the Navy told me that the actual cost of an aircraft carrier is really just a fraction of what the taxpayers end up paying for it.
It doesn't require belief in some grandiose conspiracy theory to suspect that some in the Pentagon and the defense industry might be feathering their own nests.
I don't think the military are necessarily warmongers, although I can see a lot of fearmongering. A lot of attention has been paid lately to the Chinese military buildup, and as a result, the Defense Secretary is proposing increases in the Defense budget. I don't believe they actually want to go to war with China, but they'll use fear of China as a way to get more money.
It's possible that numerous industries and government agencies grew dependent upon the gains they were making due to Cold War paranoia, which led to a massive nuclear arms race and the largest peacetime military buildup in recorded history. The ones who are the loudest at spreading fear are the ones to watch out for. Even though the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union disbanded, there have clearly been those who want to keep spreading fear which motivates the public to support increased defense spending.
There is one thing that is certain. Even if the MIC isn't involved in any kind of conspiracy, I don't see them doing much to stop the fearmongering or allay any of the fears among the public.
They're the ones who keep bellowing about all these "threats" around the world. China will get us, Iran will nuke us, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. We heard wild tales about the possible threat of hordes of Nicaraguans pouring over the border in an all-out invasion. They told us that a tiny island called Grenada was somehow a massive threat to US security. Vietnam was 10,000 miles away, and yet enough people were convinced into believing that they were coming to get us and that they could land on the California beaches any day. They also told us about Saddam's alleged WMDs.
But even despite all of their dire warnings about all these alleged "threats" around the world, they always stopped short of doing anything to actually resolve or deal with these threats once and for all. Patton wanted to deal with the Soviet Union right then and there in 1945. Much of America's political and military leadership were anti-communist and saw the Soviet Union as a threat - and stoked up a lot of fear of communism during the McCarthy era. Patton agreed with that assessment and also saw them as a threat, and he wanted to attack and invade them. MacArthur also took a very hard-lined stance against the Soviets and Red Chinese. But they ended up getting fired.
That's what a lot of people couldn't understand. If communism was really such the grave threat that many seemed to think it was, why didn't they really want to deal with it in earnest? Were they really sincerely wanting to defend America against a real threat, or was it all just an elaborate hoax?
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Both of you are correct, it just that Trump shut down almost all coverage of his ongoing wars, purely to make fools think he is not for military aggression.
So is this one.An interesting chart about drone strikes....
and this...
This of course is because Chump ordered less accountability for strikes, as well as less need for certainty in the targets (i.e. -“Kill them all, and let God sort them out.”).
Under Trump, U.S. drone strike policy is looser and less transparent
Last edited:
Never underestimate the power of incompetence.
As for the aircraft carrier claim, any evidence other
than a sailor?
What makes it a conspiracy theory is the lack of evidence,
& the eschewing of better explanations.
Does this mean you believe that China doesn't pose a significant
increasing threat? That it's just a money making ruse?
The "bellowing" I hear is from politicians, not military or contractors.
So let's say that the MICC Is real.....
If so, then every President & Congressman is part of it.
Why vote if only warmongers ever win?
Why do the warmongers get the most votes?
This all points out how deadly so many Presidents &Both of you are correct, it just that Trump shut down almost all coverage of his ongoing wars, purely to make fools think he is not for military aggression.
So is this one.
and this...
This of course is because Chump ordered less accountability for strikes, as well as less need for certainty in the targets (i.e. -“Kil them all, and let God sort them out.”).
Under Trump, U.S. drone strike policy is looser and less transparent
Congressmen are over multiple administrations.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think both are right. War should be a last resort but whenever we need a boost to the economy, skirmishes never hurt. Well, with exception to the enemy whom will hurt plenty.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Yes, one of many reasons. Follow the money.
We also give 100's of billions every year to the MIC to fund their corporate welfare program.
Republicans are always for giving more to the MIC. Democrats want the wasteful spending to be directed towards middle class policies like education, etc.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Yep.
And the companies that built the electronics, and made the fuel, and the explosives, and the housing, etc.... Did not order that their products be utilized. That was up to the seated Congress and the POTUS.
However, I’m certain that the CEOs of those companies, thanks to the fiasco called Citizens United from the SCOTUS, did in fact donate large sums of “free speech” to whichever candidates they figured would use more of their products. Of course they would also donate to the opposition as well, just in case.
No, but it stands to reason. It's just logic, when you look at who benefits.
In the case of a $20,000 toilet seat, it appears that something went awry. There's missing money there, so someone must have taken it, even if it may be difficult to prove who did it or where it went. The fact that there's missing money is evidence that something fishy is going on.
So, there is evidence, but perhaps not enough to constitute absolute proof, which is what you seem to be asking for here. It still doesn't mean that anyone is concocting some outlandish conspiracy theory. Some of it may be more a matter of general cynicism regarding the reputation of certain government institutions and political factions.
I don't see any logical reason for China to have any designs or plans to conquer America. They've made no claims to any of our territory, and we've made no claims to any of theirs. They might still hold resentments and anger over things America did to them in first half of the 20th century, but I don't know if they'd want to go to war for that reason.
They quite likely see it that we Americans are a greater threat to them than they are of us. We're the ones who send our military gallivanting all over the world in the name of "freedom" and "democracy."
Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?.
List of countries with overseas military bases - Wikipedia
The U.S. military is everywhere, and the number of wars, police actions, and other military engagements involving U.S. forces is far greater than that of those involving the Chinese. Maybe if we stand down and cool it a while, maybe they will too. It's just a thought.
So, who's a greater threat to whom? Why should we listen to or believe anyone who goes around claiming they're a threat? You asked about evidence earlier. Where is the evidence to prove that China is an active threat? Do we have secret recordings of their leaders plotting to invade America? If so, let's hear it.
At the very least, shouldn't we hold the government and politicians to the same standards and rules of evidence we would demand of the conspiracy theorists?
Maybe so, but as I said, I don't hear any attempt by the military or their contractors to contradict it or try to put people's fears at rest. Their silence on this issue speaks volumes.
Overall, both major parties have held to the same basic foreign policy which has been in place since WW2. Show me an election where a true peacenik was actually nominated and the public was offered a clear choice between war and peace. The only one I can think of was McGovern vs. Nixon in 1972, but that turned out to be an utter mess. The Clintons supposedly marched for peace when they were youth in the 60s, but by the 1990s, they were warmongers again.
So, when was the public ever really given a clear choice on this matter?
I'd like to see any financial analysis showing that war benefits
the economy.
- Yes, money is paid to soldiers & suppliers, but that money
is taken from taxpayers. Government spending offsets the lost
spending by taxpayers, suggesting that there's no net gain.
- Soldiers are injured, imposing a costs:
Upon the VA health care system.
Lost productivity of disabled survivors.
- Soldiers die, eliminating their future productivity.
- We spend tax money on recovery of the countries we attack.
I suspect that the unfounded belief that war is good for the
economy fuels many voters to elect & re-elect leaders who
wage these wars.
Do you have more than correlation being causation?
But your claim is defeated by Democrats also waging these wars.
Both Biden & Hillary voted to start the 2002 Iraq war.
Both GW Bush & Obama were re-elected after continuing 2 wars.
It's clear that a majority of voters find the wars acceptable.
What is it that fundamentally keeps a leader in power?Yep.
And the companies that built the electronics, and made the fuel, and the explosives, and the housing, etc.... Did not order that their products be utilized. That was up to the seated Congress and the POTUS.
However, I’m certain that the CEOs of those companies, thanks to the fiasco called Citizens United from the SCOTUS, did in fact donate large sums of “free speech” to whichever candidates they figured would use more of their products. Of course they would also donate to the opposition as well, just in case.
Votes.
Companies can donate to a campaign, but Citizens United
notwithstanding, corporations cannot vote. The populace
elects the leaders who wage thes wars. And those who
wage them see that doing so wins election & re-election.
GW Bush was re-elected after starting & continuing 2.
Hillary won the popular vote after starting 1, & continuing 2.
If voters really didn't want these wars, they'd select peace
candidates in the primaries. But they choose war mongers,
eg, Joe Biden (2002 Senate vote for the Iraq war).
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It seems there was a benefit, but that all changed with wars commencing after 9-11. It seems to revolve around on how wars are financed.
Brown University article....
US Economy | Costs of War
PureX
Veteran Member
And they both did so at the behest of their big money campaign contributors making huge profits off military contracts.
It's true we get involved in wars just to profit the military industrialists, but it's not because the military says so, or even wants to, it's because the bribed up politicians say so.