Trump Embraces Military Industrial Complex Conspiracy Theory

[Heyo]

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

Tulsi Gabbard, 2020. She'd have been a prime choice for VP had Bernie won the primary.

 

[pearl]

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

I think Trump is to stupid to know considering he knows next to nothing concerning history, but his statement may have something in common with Eisenhower who warned of a 'military, industrial complex.'

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Trump is to stupid to know considering he knows next to nothing concerning history, but his statement may have something in common with Eisenhower who warned of a 'military, industrial complex.'

I don't trust Eisenhower either.
He was a politician.

 

[metis]

Even going back years ago, Trump claimed that he knew more about war that "the generals", so this is not new territory for him. Now we also just learned that Mattis was so concerned about us having a nuclear war with NK that he went to the National Cathedral to pray for our country. He also said that Trump was "dangerous" and "inept" as president. And yet some here at RF said that it was Hillary that was the "war-monger".

Also, we learned yesterday of a whistle-blower who said that they were being forced by the administration to suppress the Russian-interference intelligence reports but hype-up Chinese and Iranian interference. This is basically traitorous, and we know "where to buck stops".

But like a "don" in the Mafia, Trump is just smart enough as a con-artist to know not to have his name on anything written or in e-mail that could be used as evidence. Michael Cohen can and did testify to that. However, as we've also seen, Trump ain't so smart so as to avoid making some really down-right stupid errors.

And I gotta feeling there's more that's likely to come out over the next two months, such as former Senator Dan Coats [Republican] saying to Woodward that he believes it's likely that Putin has something over Trump whereas the latter never says anything negative about him.

IOW, stay tuned.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Even going back years ago, Trump claimed that he knew more about war that "the generals", so this is not new territory for him. Now we also just learned that Mattis was so concerned about us having a nuclear war with NK that he went to the National Cathedral to pray for our country. He also said that Trump was "dangerous" and "inept" as president. And yet some here at RF said that it was Hillary that was the "war-monger".

Also, we learned yesterday of a whistle-blower who said that they were being forced by the administration to suppress the Russian-interference intelligence reports but hype-up Chinese and Iranian interference. This is basically traitorous, and we know "where to buck stops".

But like a "don" in the Mafia, Trump is just smart enough as a con-artist to know not to have his name on anything written or in e-mail that could be used as evidence. Michael Cohen can and did testify to that. However, as we've also seen, Trump ain't so smart so as to avoid making some really down-right stupid errors.

And I gotta feeling there's more that's likely to come out over the next two months, such as former Senator Dan Coats [Republican] saying to Woodward that he believes it's likely that Putin has something over Trump whereas the latter never says anything negative about him.

IOW, stay tuned.

Putin, or the Russians, having something over Trump makes the most sense for his cosying up to them, and his 'not seeing' any evidence of any poison - in both the Salisbury case and the Navalny one now.

 

[Heyo]

Even going back years ago, Trump claimed that he knew more about war that "the generals", so this is not new territory for him. Now we also just learned that Mattis was so concerned about us having a nuclear war with NK that he went to the National Cathedral to pray for our country. He also said that Trump was "dangerous" and "inept" as president. And yet some here at RF said that it was Hillary that was the "war-monger".

To understand Trumps relation to war and to the military one has to understand a few facts about him.
1. He doesn't know the military and he doesn't understand a soldiers motivation. Honour and sacrifice means nothing to him.
2. He is all about appearance. He likes military parades because they look cool.
3. He is a bully. As with #2, he likes to appear strong and intimidating but he fears direct confrontation.
4. He doesn't know what's going on, he doesn't call all the shots.
This explains why his relations to the military and his foreign policy appear erratic to any thinking being and the fear of Mattis. Trump wouldn't want to start war - but he could stumble into one. Clinton would know what she is doing and the wars she'd have started would have been well planned.

 

[Revoltingest]

To understand Trumps relation to war and to the military one has to understand a few facts about him.
1. He doesn't know the military and he doesn't understand a soldiers motivation. Honour and sacrifice means nothing to him.
2. He is all about appearance. He likes military parades because they look cool.
3. He is a bully. As with #2, he likes to appear strong and intimidating but he fears direct confrontation.
4. He doesn't know what's going on, he doesn't call all the shots.
This explains why his relations to the military and his foreign policy appear erratic to any thinking being and the fear of Mattis. Trump wouldn't want to start war - but he could stumble into one. Clinton would know what she is doing and the wars she'd have started would have been well planned.

Would this describe all believers of the MICC?
Were the Iraq & Afghan wars that Clinton supported "well planned"?

 

[metis]

To understand Trumps relation to war and to the military one has to understand a few facts about him.
1. He doesn't know the military and he doesn't understand a soldiers motivation. Honour and sacrifice means nothing to him.
2. He is all about appearance. He likes military parades because they look cool.
3. He is a bully. As with #2, he likes to appear strong and intimidating but he fears direct confrontation.
4. He doesn't know what's going on, he doesn't call all the shots.
This explains why his relations to the military and his foreign policy appear erratic to any thinking being and the fear of Mattis. Trump wouldn't want to start war - but he could stumble into one. Clinton would know what she is doing and the wars she'd have started would have been well planned.

I agree with your list except the last item as I don't believe it was in her to actually start a war.

 

[Heyo]

Would this describe all believers of the MICC?
Were the Iraq & Afghan wars that Clinton supported "well planned"?

You bet. Afghanistan is a success story now running for almost 20 years. Iraq even led to Syria and if Trump wasn't such a coward would have led to Iran.

 

[Revoltingest]

You bet. Afghanistan is a success story now running for almost 20 years. Iraq even led to Syria and if Trump wasn't such a coward would have led to Iran.

If cowardice prevented war with Iran, then Go cowardice!

 

[Heyo]

If cowardice prevented war with Iran, then Go cowardice!

Not only with Iran (if you believe the Deep State conspiracy),

 

[Revoltingest]

Not only with Iran (if you believe the Deep State conspiracy),

He avoided touching the 3rd rail driving
our mid-east adventurism, ie, Israel.

 

[Heyo]

He avoided touching the 3rd rail driving
our mid-east adventurism, ie, Israel.

The game these people are playing is called geo-politics and in it, Israel is just a pawn. They think big and they think long term (that's why they can't be partisan and dependent on the current administration). The goal is to keep the US a dominating superpower.

 

[Revoltingest]

The game these people are playing is called geo-politics and in it, Israel is just a pawn. They think big and they think long term (that's why they can't be partisan and dependent on the current administration). The goal is to keep the US a dominating superpower.

I disagree. Israel is a greatly favored ally of Ameristan
with powerful allies & lobbyists in government here.
It's security is of paramount concern.
Were it strictly about our being a dominant superpower
(which is a partial reason for mid-east obsession), we'd
spread our concern more evenly. But as already pointed
out, non-Egyptian Africa languishes in our peripheral vision.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm seeing Biden endure much grief for ending the war in Afghanistan.
Liberals & conservatives both have members lamenting our leaving
before fixing the country. Once again, the Ameristanian voter's
belief in war to pursue nation building is a better explanation than
the conspiracy theory "military industrial complex" (MIC).

Goof for Biden to stick to his guns, & continue the pull-out.
There's no way it wouldn't be such a mess. So the sooner
the better. He's so far a better Prez than his immediate
predecessors.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'm seeing Biden endure much grief for ending the war in Afghanistan.
Liberals & conservatives both have members lamenting our leaving
before fixing the country. Once again, the Ameristanian voter's
belief in war to pursue nation building is a better explanation than
the conspiracy theory "military industrial complex" (MIC).

Goof for Biden to stick to his guns, & continue the pull-out.
There's no way it wouldn't be such a mess. So the sooner
the better. He's so far a better Prez than his immediate
predecessors.

Agreed, “Good” for Biden. Nation building has never worked. I thought (naively) that our twit politicians and general would have figured that out several decades ago, with the Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran, or Pinochet in Chile, or…..
In Afghanistan, I do consider the US to be partially at fault for the collapse of the Afghan military: since if we were “nation building’ we sure were willing to turn a blind eye to (and even encouraged) corruption in the highest levels.

But, yes, in the end, getting out of Afghanistan was always going to be messy and violent. And it always needed to be done.
Once Osama bin Laden was dead, it was time to leave. Period.

 

[Friend of Mara]

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

Unequivocally yes. The military contractors are lobbyists or have lobbyists. Its a trillion dollar industry that has been growing steadily over the last 20 years and what do we have to even show for it? We haven't achieved much in the middle east and all of our efforts to set Afghanistan up was a total failure. I imagine many other countries we are currently propping up is the same. We've spent 6.4 trillion in overseas affairs since 2001. With that same money we could have ended homelessness and poverty in the US. We could fund a single payer healthcare system for 5 strait years.

I mean the amount of money that has essentially been wasted is mind boggling but we continue to do it because people with money want to make more money and they have found an incredible source of income by stealing from the American people to kill brown people.

 

[Secret Chief]

Afghanistan is a success story now running for almost 20 years.

This post is several months old.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unequivocally yes. The military contractors are lobbyists or have lobbyists. Its a trillion dollar industry that has been growing steadily over the last 20 years and what do we have to even show for it? We haven't achieved much in the middle east and all of our efforts to set Afghanistan up was a total failure. I imagine many other countries we are currently propping up is the same. We've spent 6.4 trillion in overseas affairs since 2001. With that same money we could have ended homelessness and poverty in the US. We could fund a single payer healthcare system for 5 strait years.

I mean the amount of money that has essentially been wasted is mind boggling but we continue to do it because people with money want to make more money and they have found an incredible source of income by stealing from the American people to kill brown people.

So they controlled Bush, Biden, Obama, Hillary, etc?
Do voters bear any responsibility for the hawks they put in office?
Why is Biden now the only Prez to buck the system?

 

[Friend of Mara]

So they controlled Bush, Biden, Obama, Hillary, etc?
Do voters bear any responsibility for the hawks they put in office?
Why is Biden now the only Prez to buck the system?

They didn't have to control all of them. Just one of them had to have the interest in mind to start it. Once you are entangled it is difficult to leave. And when you do leave it looks like what we saw over the last few weeks.

He isn't bucking any kind of system. We still have troops on the ground in various places in the middle east as well as other locations. He didn't even come up with this exit strategy.

I think the voters do in some degree but when lobbying can get whatever they want passed it stops being a billion mistakes from voters and more about the political power allowed to be exhorted by pushing money into people's pockets.