Trump Embraces Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy Theory

[Revoltingest]

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.

Certainly, donations help a candidate win.
But the reason for them is to garner votes,
the fundamental source of power.
His criticism of the MICC strikes me as very
anti-military, but it might resonate with the
conspiracy theorists.
Still...I think he's campaigning poorly.
But that's OK...won't hurt Jorgensen's race.

 

[Revoltingest]

And whose fault is that?

The voters (who reward leaders for doing it).

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.

You say "no good reason", but the voters
found the given reasons compelling.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Humans....they're the fundamental problem.
If they want war, they'll get it.
I just hope to sway a couple people a little in
the direction of more peaceful foreign policy.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

What do you know of the 1953 coup in Iran?
IMO, that was a heinous act.

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.

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.

Our response to 9/11 was a cure worse than the problem IMO.
Your "necessary action" strikes me as foreign adventurism.

 

[Stevicus]

The voters (who reward leaders for doing it).

You say "no good reason", but the voters
found the given reasons compelling.

When were voters ever given the choice? Name one time that they were offered such a choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

When were voters ever given the choice? Name one time that they were offered such a choice.

Yes.
In the primaries, they were offered peace candidates, but turned
them down. And there are always 3rd party peaceniks.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes.
In the primaries, they were offered peace candidates, but turned
them down. And there are always 3rd party peaceniks.

Who, specifically, ran on a platform of peace, and when?

 

[Cooky]

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?

What about military spending as a whole..? To reduce the big picture to "drones" and "civilian deaths" is a kind of myopic and off topic approach in discussing the 'MIC".

 

[Revoltingest]

Who, specifically, ran on a platform of peace, and when?

Bernie Sanders in 2016.
I'd have voted for him over Trump.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

What about military spending as a whole..? To reduce the big picture to "drones" and "civilian deaths" is a kind of myopic and off topic approach in discussing the 'MIC".

Well it does go toward the discussion of war. And Trump’s willingness to engage in it.
As for spending on the MIC,....yes Trump has increased spending without restraint or care about debt. Let your daughter and my kids pay for it later. Right? But he did cut taxes on the wealthy, so.....wait....that just makes the debt worse. Whoops!

 

[Stevicus]

Bernie Sanders in 2016.
I'd have voted for him over Trump.

Me too, and I agreed with many of Sanders' positions. He was focused more on wealth inequality as his primary issue. But I didn't see him as strictly a "peace" candidate. I don't recall him making that a major part of his platform. I don't think he proposed any major changes to U.S. foreign policy, which is the real cause of the problem anyway.

That's why the issue here is far more complex than the voters simply voting for peace or war. They need to vote for an entirely new foreign policy, and in order to do that, they need to understand the world better.

 

[MonkeyFire]

This is correct, but I am skeptical that Trump is endorsing it.

 

[fantome profane]

Trump is blaming the Generals because it is politically expedient for him to do so (or at least he thinks it is politically expedient). But Generals do not set policy. Generals do not award to defence contractors, and Generals do not receive campaign donations from those defence contractors. That is Congress and the President.

 

[Revoltingest]

Me too, and I agreed with many of Sanders' positions. He was focused more on wealth inequality as his primary issue. But I didn't see him as strictly a "peace" candidate. I don't recall him making that a major part of his platform. I don't think he proposed any major changes to U.S. foreign policy, which is the real cause of the problem anyway.

That's why the issue here is far more complex than the voters simply voting for peace or war. They need to vote for an entirely new foreign policy, and in order to do that, they need to understand the world better.

I didn't agree with many of his positions.
But I agreed with many of the effects I expect he'd have had.

 

[Stevicus]

I didn't agree with many of his positions.
But I agreed with many of the effects I expect he'd have had.

I liked Sanders, but if he had been elected, I don't think that would have been a guarantee that we would have peace.

In order for the U.S. to truly embrace a peaceful doctrine, we'd have to start by refraining from butting in to other countries' internal affairs. The kind of changes we would need to make are an impossibility in the current political climate.

I understand your point that it's the voters' fault, not the fault of the military or defense industry (although they vote, too). I don't think it's all warmongers, though. However, they might be persuaded to vote for warmongers if their local economy is dependent upon the presence of a military base or a major defense contractor.

Other than that, I think most voters are victims of fearmongering. If you're arguing that it's their fault for being duped, then I could agree with that. But are you actually saying that the majority of voters are really that bloodthirsty and truly want war? I'll concede that some people are like that, but I think most would agree with the idea that war should only be a last resort.

My proposal would involve planning ahead, being more proactive and less reactive, and not get ourselves into situations where we're at the end of the line and have to opt for "the last resort." We seem to reach "the last resort" quite a bit, and that's what needs to stop.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

We go to war because a president sends out troops to fight. they don't decide who to fight or when to fight.

 

[Revoltingest]

I liked Sanders, but if he had been elected, I don't think that would have been a guarantee that we would have peace.

I look for likelihoods, not guarantees.

In order for the U.S. to truly embrace a peaceful doctrine, we'd have to start by refraining from butting in to other countries' internal affairs. The kind of changes we would need to make are an impossibility in the current political climate.

Changing leaders could change the political climate.

I understand your point that it's the voters' fault, not the fault of the military or defense industry (although they vote, too). I don't think it's all warmongers, though. However, they might be persuaded to vote for warmongers if their local economy is dependent upon the presence of a military base or a major defense contractor.

Other than that, I think most voters are victims of fearmongering. If you're arguing that it's their fault for being duped, then I could agree with that. But are you actually saying that the majority of voters are really that bloodthirsty and truly want war? I'll concede that some people are like that, but I think most would agree with the idea that war should only be a last resort.

My proposal would involve planning ahead, being more proactive and less reactive, and not get ourselves into situations where we're at the end of the line and have to opt for "the last resort." We seem to reach "the last resort" quite a bit, and that's what needs to stop.

Voters are responsible for any manipulation "victimhood" they endure.
Taking greater responsibility would be useful.

 

[Revoltingest]

We go to war because a president sends out troops to fight. they don't decide who to fight or when to fight.

I agree.

 

[Heyo]

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.

There is a special quality in those who perform government tasks with private contractors. The only other industry that has a similar role and scope is the banks.

 

[Cooky]

There is a special quality in those who perform government tasks with private contractors. The only other industry that has a similar role and scope is the banks.

Something I hadn't considered. Thanks.