Trump Embraces Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy Theory

[Revoltingest]

No I think that is ridiculous, for two reasons.

First, anyone who has had ANY contact with military officers knows they need to have a bond with their men based on implicit trust and would not wish to sacrifice their lives unnecessarily, least of all for the profit of some 3rd party corporation.

Second, these corporations do very nicely out of the peacetime expenditure of the armed forces on equipment. They don't rely on wars to be profitable, nor does the military have any incentive to bankroll them artificially through starting wars.

What certainly does seem to exist, however, is Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex", whereby there is an incentive to talk up threats, propose new equipment to meet them and then supply it. But that is not at all the same as actually fomenting war for its own sake.

The people that do that, notoriously, are politicians and their acolytes in think tanks and the media, trying to push an agenda or distract from problems at home by building up foreign bogeymen and uniting the country on the pretext of these bogus threats.

It appears to me that the problem is the Politician Voter Complex.
Pols wage wars, & voters re-elect them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I do. The holy grail of a corporation is to gain access to government contracts and tax dollars. Government contracts pay a premium compared to the free market. Take a look at the first ever pentagon audit. Money vanishes.
But we all know the republicans support that thievery. Only 1 party wants to defund education to transfer funds into the MIC.
Another fine example is the talk of 'school choice.' Privatization of the education system in the hopes of massive profits, tax dollars and corporate freebies.
It's been a long road for republicans on defunding public education and today we get to see the result of that effort. Terrible public education, thanks to republican policies.
But republicans and their corporate overlords knew what they were doing from the beginning, slowly eroding the public education system and it's perception among the country as a whole.
This gives corporate schools a chance to step in.

Same grifting thievery, different arena. Tax dollars and corporate freebies at the expense of the middle class is what they're after.

Judge strikes down DeVos plan to boost pandemic relief for private schools

I think you've lost track of the OP.

 

[Heyo]

Are soldiers innocent dupes in the conspiracy, or do they too like war?

Some do, some don't, for most it is just a job.
Few even see real combat where their own lives are on the line. And the public get their "information" from Hollywood. War is not a pressing issue.

 

[Heyo]

Strongest argument yet, but a conspiracy this massive over
so many decades should yield more than circumstantial
evidence. How did Obama (one of the conspirators) benefit?

A conspiracy implies secret deals in smoke filled back rooms. There is no conspiracy. It is all in the open. We know the military budget. We know who contributes to campaigns. We know the revolving door between military/corporations, politics and lobbyists. We know about the 21 trillion dollars that the military "misplaced". It all works like a well oiled machine.

 

[exchemist]

Of course not. They sacrifice foreigners - or as they call them, "collateral damage".

Possibly, but that is another issue, with no bearing on the OP.

 

[Revoltingest]

A conspiracy implies secret deals in smoke filled back rooms. There is no conspiracy. It is all in the open. We know the military budget. We know who contributes to campaigns. We know the revolving door between military/corporations, politics and lobbyists. We know about the 21 trillion dollars that the military "misplaced". It all works like a well oiled machine.

You're neglecting the role of the voter in keeping war mongers in office.
Revolving doors....contributions....those things all take a back seat
to getting votes.

 

[Cooky]

In the news....
War is 'a last resort,' Army chief says after Trump's comments
Excerpted...
The Army's top general defended military leaders on Tuesday after President Donald Trump accused them of going to war to keep defense contractors "happy," saying he and others take the decision to send troops into combat "very, very seriously."
Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville declined to comment specifically on Trump's remarks to reporters on Monday, but defended the Pentagon brass against the accusation that they are beholden to arms manufacturers.
......
The general's comments mark the Pentagon's first public response to Trump's remarks during a combative White House news conference on Monday, in which he said "top people in the Pentagon" probably aren’t “in love with me” because “they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”


Do you agree with Trump that we go to war because
military leaders seek to please contractors?

Trump isn't afraid to tell anyone anything. As far as if we go to war too much, yes, Clinton, Bush and Obama all supported special interests associated with those conflicts, which included arming Middle Eastern groups for multiple special interest reasons, IMO... Trump does not represent special interests. He *is* the special interest, calling out those he sees for whom they are. IMO.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You're neglecting the role of the voter in keeping war mongers in office.
Revolving doors....contributions....those things all take a back seat
to getting votes.

You’re thinking too singularly. Its about press and media coverage. Which is to say advertising the candidates and covering up past failures. I.e. its about statistics, not about one person’s singular decision.
Political campaign managers can calculate how many dollars spent in which media arena will result in how many overall votes.
Does a speaking chihuahua make you want to eat tacos? Because apparently it does when dealing with the public.
Does getting Chump on TV spewing lies and lies make you want to vote him into executive power, regardless of how woefully unsuited he is for office? Because apparently is does statistically speaking, when looking at certain poorly educated sections of the populaion.
Sex sells. It doesn’t matter whether you’re gonna “get some” or not.

Fear sells. It doesn’t matter whether you’re really in danger, or even if you’ve ever been personally in danger.

Ego sells. Loud sells. Funny sells. Sounding ‘patriotic’ sells. Promises of riches sells.


And far far down the list, facts and rational consideration .....meh sells.

The average voters don’t have the time or attention span to consider all the issues, or the factual histories of the candidates. They vote by emotion and recent memory triggers.
As my mom always says, “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voting public.”
Life has seldom proven that quote to be wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

You’re thinking too singularly. Its about press and media coverage. Which is to say advertising the candidates and covering up past failures. I.e. its about statistics, not about one person’s singular decision.
Political campaign managers can calculate how many dollars spent in which media arena will result in how many overall votes.
Does a speaking chihuahua make you want to eat tacos? Because apparently it does when dealing with the public.
Does getting Chump on TV spewing lies and lies make you want to vote him into executive power, regardless of how woefully unsuited he is for office? Because apparently is does statistically speaking, when looking at certain poorly educated sections of the populaion.
Sex sells. It doesn’t matter whether you’re gonna “get some” or not.

Fear sells. It doesn’t matter whether you’re really in danger, or even if you’ve ever been personally in danger.

Ego sells. Loud sells. Funny sells. Sounding ‘patriotic’ sells. Promises of riches sells.


And far far down the list, facts and rational consideration .....meh sells.

The average voters don’t have the time or attention span to consider all the issues, or the factual histories of the candidates. They vote by emotion and recent memory triggers.
As my mom always says, “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voting public.”
Life has seldom proven that quote to be wrong.

It all still ignores the fact that voters repeatedly endorse
the war mongers. They blame the MICC & everyone else,
but never take responsibility for their own choices.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Trump isn't afraid to tell anyone anything. As far as if we go to war too much, yes, Clinton, Bush and Obama all supported special interests associated with those conflicts, which included arming Middle Eastern groups for multiple special interest reasons, IMO... Trump does not represent special interests. He *is* the special interest, calling out those he sees for whom they are. IMO.

Then why is Trump doing so much bombing and killing overseas?
Why is he directing the military to spend so much on the community infrastructure around his own golf courses in Scotland?
How about answering @Revoltingest ’s question above....what did Obama (other than killing bin Laden and destroying ISIS/al Queda) get out of drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Because frankly, I don’t see the financial win for Obama there.

 

[Yerda]

It all still ignores the fact that voters repeatedly endorse
the war mongers. They blame the MICC & everyone else,
but never take responsibility for their own choices.

Ok. I can agree that this is true.

 

[Cooky]

Then why is Trump doing so much bombing and killing overseas?
Why is he directing the military to spend so much on the community infrastructure around his own golf courses in Scotland?
How about answering @Revoltingest ’s question above....what did Obama (other than killing bin Laden and destroying ISIS/al Queda) get out of drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Because frankly, I don’t see the financial win for Obama there.

Someone who makes drones was very happy when they recieved notification that the U.S. military needed replacement drones and parts . Maybe they were so happy, they even gave their lobbyists gifts?

...You know, the lobbyists who influenced the people who influenced the generals who influenced the presidents to engage in foreign conflicts.

 

[Heyo]

You're neglecting the role of the voter in keeping war mongers in office.
Revolving doors....contributions....those things all take a back seat
to getting votes.

No. Donations help the election of the "right" people. Having part of the media in the pocket also doesn't hurt.
And the most important part is fear and the tradition of fear. Since 75 years the MIC has been successful in marketing itself as the saviour. It has almost become taboo to speak bad about the military. Not even Trump is allowed to do that. (See current uproar about "losers" and "suckers".)
As long as the MIC controls that narrative, little will change.

 

[Stevicus]

That doesn't address the MICC claim, ie, that
generals & corporations direct Ameristan to wage war.

No, but it's an indication of corruption. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

It's evidence of the MICC in the manner that existence
of humans & apes co-existing is evidence of creationism.
There's no explanatory power.

But you said it was "unevidenced," which was clearly not correct.

It doesn't matter what you & I find to be an existential threat.

Well, you asked the question, so I answered it.

The history & current politics of Ameristan is that we travel
the world waging wars against perceived threats.

And whose fault is that?

But this doesn't address the MICC, which is the claim that
the military & suppliers are directing government to wage war.
If they actually exercised such power, does it make sense
that no one presents any smoking gun for any of the numerous
such directives? All anyone has offered is that companies make
money, the military likes war, therefore they coerce leaders to
authorize it. Now Trump is in bed with these liberals.

I speculate that voters, especially liberals, claim this in order
to evade responsibility for wars their choices pursue. They
say voting cannot stop it, yet they vote for war mongers.

I look at it another way. Considering all the wars America has been in since WW2, I think the complete absence of any evidenced, verifiable, genuine, and legitimate casus belli is enough to show that there's obviously something fishy going on. If they go to war for no good reason, that in and of itself should be sufficient evidence to prove wrongdoing.

 

[Cooky]

No. Donations help the election of the "right" people. Having part of the media in the pocket also doesn't hurt.
And the most important part is fear and the tradition of fear. Since 75 years the MIC has been successful in marketing itself as the saviour. It has almost become taboo to speak bad about the military. Not even Trump is allowed to do that. (See current uproar about "losers" and "suckers".)
As long as the MIC controls that narrative, little will change.

The "MIC" is no different than any other lobbyist or special interest group, from telecommunications (Hillary's "broadband in every home by 2020" campaign promise) to any other.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Someone who makes drones was very happy when they recieved notification that the U.S. military needed replacement drones and parts . Maybe they were so happy, they even gave their lobbyists gifts?

...You know, the lobbyists who influenced the people who influenced the generals who influenced the presidents to engage in foreign conflicts.

That would mean that Trump got even more....gifts.

 

[Cooky]

That would mean that Trump got even more....gifts.

I'm not sure why you say that.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

It all still ignores the fact that voters repeatedly endorse
the war mongers. They blame the MICC & everyone else,
but never take responsibility for their own choices.

Often they can’t even recognize that they themselves ever made a mistake in their votes. They believe (erroneously) that they are on the side of righteousness and reason. But they are just marks.

Typical humans.

 

[sun rise]

He originated the popular term, but twas liberals who embraced it.
(And as I recall, liberals say that not all are loyal to origins, eg,
Democrats & slavery

That's quite some claim. Prove it. And prove that the right does not outdo the left by a very large margin.

Eisenhower was no saint.)

So what? You've brought up not being a saint a number of times and I've answered that there are no saints in politics and I don't care. I just want reasonably honorable people in office rather than authoritarian narcissists and obvious criminals.

Would they attack us if we weren't there?
I'm not a pacifist, just an opponent of our massive foreign military adventurism.

I'm an opponent of "massive foreign military adventurism" as well.

They did attack us on 9/11 as well as various terror attacks around the world designed to bring about them taking over.

One person's adventurism is another's necessary action to preserve our way of life and help those who need our help.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'm not sure why you say that.

Because as I showed on page 2, post #29,
Trump has killed more civilians and dropped more drone strikes around the globe than Obama or Bush Jr,, in less time. Its just that he gave executive orders that the government should be more secretive and less transparent.

Are you just now realizing this?