War drum being beat louder than ever

[Terrywoodenpic]

It suits China to have NK as a buffer zone.
If it comes to conflict they will support NK as they did last time.
Manpower losses are not a problem to either China or NK.
They have rather more than they can easily support anyway.

If they use their Nukes we have no way we can defend SK cities.
If they use them on Japan or America what could the USA do?
Start Armageddon?

 

[tytlyf]

To be "involved" is not to be in control.
You speak of how it's possible for them to influence leadership to war, but you present no evidenced argument.

This is still tin foil hat conspiracy theory territory.

When I worked in aerospace (military), it was very difficult to get government to
cooperate with sales approvals. If companies really had that much control, gov
wouldn't have erected so many barriers to doing business, especially overseas.
The biggest lobby problem I saw was Congressmen who steered contracts to
businesses in their own states, to the detriment of our defense needs, eg, the
A9 v A10 competition, the F18 prime contractor sourcing.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's capitalism 101. If you're in the war business, you're going to push for war. Because profits. This is why it doesn't matter the candidate running for president, it's the party that's the problem.

 

[Underhill]

No.
That responsibility lies with the voters & the leaders they elect to pursue war.

Oh I see, so the fact that they spend millions on persuading the right has no baring. Ultimately, you are half right. But when you ignore the money men you do a disservice to the voters who are duped by politicians whom they think are working towards their best interest.

He was in charge of those generals, & could've given them orders to end the wars.
He chose not to.
His weakness & poor judgement cannot be blamed on "being harassed by the right".

Did I blame it on the right? I blamed it on reality. Pulling out of a war is not a simple thing as we have seen in Iraq. There are consequences to everything we do.

My solution is to vote in a Libertarian
But that solution has yet to present itself as a viable alternative.
So it's the old lesser of 2 evils situation.

So you've said. And you picked this guy. That still blows my mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's capitalism 101. If you're in the war business, you're going to push for war. Because profits. This is why it doesn't matter the candidate running for president, it's the party that's the problem.

Capitalism....any experience with it in the weapons business?

 

[tytlyf]

So you've said. And you picked this guy. That still blows my mind.

Propaganda is powerful. Which is why it's still utilized to this day. It gets results without being obvious.

 

[tytlyf]

Capitalism....any experience with it in the weapons business?

Nope, doesn't matter the business. Capitalism is all the same selling bombs or burgers. Is it really that hard to believe that corporations that rely on tax dollars for profits would take advantage of the system?
Especially when you can buy up congresspeople to make sure our tax dollars are overpaying for products?

Only 1 party has no problem with unlimited corporate donations buying elections.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh I see, so the fact that they spend millions on persuading the right has no baring. Ultimately, you are half right. But when you ignore the money men you do a disservice to the voters who are duped by politicians whom they think are working towards their best interest.

I don't ignore money men.
I just see no evidence presented that they drive war lust.
But were your conspiracy theory correct, they persuade not just the right, but also the left.
Your side is pro-war.

But voters.....we do see them favor war.
Obama did what he did in pursuing the wars, & the voters re-elected him with a resounding majority.

Did I blame it on the right? I blamed it on reality. Pulling out of a war is not a simple thing as we have seen in Iraq. There are consequences to everything we do.

There are consequences for pulling out (cost savings, instability in the affected country),
just as there are consequences for continuing wars (wasting money, more death & destruction).
Pulling out of a war is indeed simple.
Just do it.
It's the right thing.

So you've said. And you picked this guy. That still blows my mind.

He was not as bad as Hillary.
'Mind blowing" that you thought her a good idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, doesn't matter the business. Capitalism is all the same selling bombs or burgers. Is it really that hard to believe that corporations that rely on tax dollars for profits would take advantage of the system?
Especially when you can buy up congresspeople to make sure our tax dollars are overpaying for products?

Only 1 party has no problem with unlimited corporate donations buying elections.

So you have certainty about how an industry functions...with utterly no
experience in it, or even an evidenced argument to back it up. Oh, dear.

 

[Underhill]

I don't ignore money men.
I just see no evidence presented that they drive war lust.
But were your conspiracy theory correct, they persuade not just the right, but also the left.
Your side is pro-war.

Are they now? Evidence for this?

But voters.....we do see them favor war.

Yes, they are. Why is that do you think? It's because they buy into the propoganda and do not see the men behind the curtain who pay for their warmongering with tax dollars.

Obama did what he did in pursuing the wars, & the voters re-elected him with a resounding majority.

Pursuing what wars? He did less in Syria and Iraq than generals and the republicans wanted, pulled out quicker than they screamed for.

There are consequences for pulling out (cost savings, instability in the affected country),
just as there are consequences for continuing wars (wasting money, more death & destruction).
Pulling out of a war is indeed simple.
Just do it.
It's the right thing.

Right, and it doesn't matter if the country falls into chaos, costing even more lives...

He was not as bad as Hillary.
'Mind blowing" that you thought her a good idea.

Good idea is a stretch, but she was not this egotist who is likely to have us in war with North Korea and who knows who else..

 

[Revoltingest]

Are they now? Evidence for this?

You re-elected Obama after he dishonored his campaign promise to end the wars.
He continued them, & you guys approved this by voting for him.

Yes, they are. Why is that do you think? It's because they buy into the propoganda and do not see the men behind the curtain who pay for their warmongering with tax dollars.

What propaganda is promulgated by military contractors?

Pursuing what wars? He did less in Syria and Iraq than generals and the republicans wanted, pulled out quicker than they screamed for.

You're avoiding the fact that Obama pursued 2 other wars.
That is what I object to.

But if you want to make this about defending Obama,
remember that I praised him for resisting calls to attack Iran.

Right, and it doesn't matter if the country falls into chaos, costing even more lives...

That result is that country's problem.
While you support playing policeman to the world (signifying your buying into
the very propaganda you decry), I'm willing to let foreigners suffer rather than
effecting regime change. We have a poor record at "fixing" failed countries.

Good idea is a stretch, but she was not this egotist who is likely to have us in war with North Korea and who knows who else..

That is your opinion.
Mine opinion of her is lower, based upon both her record & her carefully proffered agenda.

 

[Underhill]

You re-elected Obama after he dishonored his campaign promise to end the wars.
He continued them, & you guys approved this by voting for him.

Two things. First, the person he was running against was even worse on the war issue. So stop pretending like it was much of a choice.

Second, he was drawing down troop levels in Iraq.

What propaganda is promulgated by military contractors?

Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex

You're avoiding the fact that Obama pursued 2 other wars.
That is what I object to.

I don't see it that way. He was trying desperately to limit our involvement in those other wars in spite of generals, lobbyist and the right pushing for war on a much larger scale.

But if you want to make this about defending Obama,
remember that I praised him for resisting calls to attack Iran.

Its not about defending Obama as it is about defending democrats in general. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but in the last 40 years that I have been paying attention they have been definitely better on foreign wars. They may be a bit quicker to intervene in humanitarian type conflicts, but are slower to the war path.

That result is that country's problem.
While you support playing policeman to the world (signifying your buying into
the very propaganda you decry), I'm willing to let foreigners suffer rather than
effecting regime change. We have a poor record at "fixing" failed countries.

Of course it is our problem. You cannot invade a country, fire all the police and military, then leave. It is a recipe for disaster. If you think things are bad now, they would be much worse if we had left years earlier. If we hadn't spent those years there training people most experts agree the country would have fallen completely to ISIS or some other warlord group.

That is your opinion.
Mine opinion of her is lower, based upon both her record & her carefully proffered agenda.

As apposed to Trumps measured approach to foreign relations?

 

[Revoltingest]

Two things. First, the person he was running against was even worse on the war issue. So stop pretending like it was much of a choice.

I agree that they were both bad.
It's why I voted Libertarian in that election.
You could've voted the no-war vote too.
But you choose the lesser of 2 hawks.

Second, he was drawing down troop levels in Iraq.

Too slowly.
I'd have done it instantly.

Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex

Your link provides no hard evidence....only claims that the MIC sends the country to war.
Far more is required when we see these basic, objective & compelling facts....
- President Bush sent us to war, with bi-partisan support in Congress.
- Bush had the power to stop the wars, but didn't.
- He was re-elected after doing all this.
- President Obama kept us in war, despite campaign promises to the contrary.
- He was re-elected after doing all this.
- Democratic protests against the wars evaporated when Bush's wars became Obama's.

Yet you claim a conspiracy by companies to direct our entire leadership to go to war.
You offer no evidence other than the appearance of collusion & control.
Your conspiracy theory lacks predictive value.
If valid, then we'd have attacked Iran, heeding the calls of hawks & Israel (the tail which wags the dog).

I don't see it that way. He was trying desperately to limit our involvement in those other wars in spite of generals, lobbyist and the right pushing for war on a much larger scale.

How did the generals force Obama to keep the wars going?
How did the generals specifically benefit financially?

Its not about defending Obama as it is about defending democrats in general. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but in the last 40 years that I have been paying attention they have been definitely better on foreign wars. They may be a bit quicker to intervene in humanitarian type conflicts, but are slower to the war path.

You might find solace in belief that Democrats are slightly less hawkish than Republicans,
but I find them both wasteful & dangerous in that regard. Look at whom they present us
with.....Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton. No wonder Bernie wasn't a party member.
I'd have voted for him over Trump & even Johnson (cuz Bernie might've won).

Of course it is our problem. You cannot invade a country, fire all the police and military, then leave. It is a recipe for disaster. If you think things are bad now, they would be much worse if we had left years earlier. If we hadn't spent those years there training people most experts agree the country would have fallen completely to ISIS or some other warlord group.

Let the disaster happen at their own hands instead of at ours.
I say it's wrong to attack countries just because ISIS might gain a foothold.

As apposed to Trumps measured approach to foreign relations?

(You mean "opposed".)
Trump is indeed a wild card.
I don't defend him as a quality leader.
But it's early, & we shall see what results.

 

[Underhill]

I agree that they were both bad.
It's why I voted Libertarian in that election.
You could've voted the no-war vote too.
But you choose the lesser of 2 hawks.

Too slowly.
I'd have done it instantly.

Your link provides no hard evidence....only claims that the MIC sends the country to war.
Far more is required when we see these basic, objective & compelling facts....
- President Bush sent us to war, with bi-partisan support in Congress.
- Bush had the power to stop the wars, but didn't.
- He was re-elected after doing all this.
- President Obama kept us in war, despite campaign promises to the contrary.
- He was re-elected after doing all this.
- Democratic protests against the wars evaporated when Bush's wars became Obama's.

Yet you claim a conspiracy by companies to direct our entire leadership to go to war.
You offer no evidence other than the appearance of collusion & control.
Your conspiracy theory lacks predictive value.
If valid, then we'd have attacked Iran, heeding the calls of hawks & Israel (the tail which wags the dog).

The evidence is in the fact that these companies keep paying tens of millions, perhaps more, for lobbyist. If you think they are spending that kind of money with no results you are dreaming. The article I linked gave at least one concrete example of a man from a lobbying group campaigning on talk news for "airport security" while being paid by the company that makes airport scanners.

But if you need more evidence look up the actions of retired general Richard Cody. The guy was actively campaigning about how Russia was a looming threat. All while being a VP in the 7th largest US defense contractor.

These companies actively work to ramp up tensions in an effort to increase sales. They rarely advocate for open war, but they do push for escalation on almost every front.

How did the generals force Obama to keep the wars going?
How did the generals specifically benefit financially?

Who said they did, directly. And who is talking about force? I simply pointed out the fact that it isn't uncommon for presidents to receive an education when they reach the white house on the potential fall out from certain campaign promises. Just look at President Trump for some prime examples of campaign promises where the realized, "who knew this was so difficult.."

You might find solace in belief that Democrats are slightly less hawkish than Republicans,
but I find them both wasteful & dangerous in that regard. Look at whom they present us
with.....Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton. No wonder Bernie wasn't a party member.
I'd have voted for him over Trump & even Johnson (cuz Bernie might've won).

So now Warren is a war hawk? That's absurd.

Let the disaster happen at their own hands instead of at ours.
I say it's wrong to attack countries just because ISIS might gain a foothold.

I would agree if you are talking about going into Iraq, but it was a bit late for that decision. You know, the one Obama voted against...

(You mean "opposed".)
Trump is indeed a wild card.
I don't defend him as a quality leader.
But it's early, & we shall see what results.

At this point he is more than a wild card. He has already escalated things in Afghanistan and is pushing for war in North Korea. (how did that go the first time again?)

 

[Revoltingest]

The evidence is in the fact that these companies keep paying tens of millions, perhaps more, for lobbyist. If you think they are spending that kind of money with no results you are dreaming. The article I linked gave at least one concrete example of a man from a lobbying group campaigning on talk news for "airport security" while being paid by the company that makes airport scanners.

What makes you so firmly believe that they're lobbying for the country to go to war?
What I observed was effort to get contracts. This is necessary because the process
is so political. I gave the examples of the A9 vs A10, & F18 primary contractor status.
What specific examples to the contrary do you have?
In what area of the defense industry are you so experienced that you have such certainty?

But if you need more evidence look up the actions of retired general Richard Cody. The guy was actively campaigning about how Russia was a looming threat. All while being a VP in the 7th largest US defense contractor.

He's your example, so you might to the homework of looking him up,
& showing how he influenced the country towards war.
"Russia is a looming threat" is one of those "duh" claims, ie, a great
many of us see it as obvious. So it doesn't prove your point at all.

These companies actively work to ramp up tensions in an effort to increase sales. They rarely advocate for open war, but they do push for escalation on almost every front.

Examples?

Who said they did, directly. And who is talking about force? I simply pointed out the fact that it isn't uncommon for presidents to receive an education when they reach the white house on the potential fall out from certain campaign promises. Just look at President Trump for some prime examples of campaign promises where the realized, "who knew this was so difficult.."

So you're now defending playing policeman to the world, military adventurism, & peremptory attacks?
It would seem you are the one who buys into the alleged propaganda which sends us to war.
I reject it.

So now Warren is a war hawk? That's absurd.

By my values, yes.
Even lefties agree that she is.
Elizabeth Warren is a super hawk on Israel

I would agree if you are talking about going into Iraq, but it was a bit late for that decision. You know, the one Obama voted against...

When did he vote against it?

At this point he is more than a wild card. He has already escalated things in Afghanistan and is pushing for war in North Korea. (how did that go the first time again?)

At this point, he is only 100 (or so) days in office.
So we don't really yet know what danger he poses.
But I don't defend his foreign policy actions.

 

[tytlyf]

So you have certainty about how an industry functions...with utterly no
experience in it, or even an evidenced argument to back it up. Oh, dear.

Yes, I have amazing certainty about how the republican establishment works. Ironically, Rush laid out what I've been talking about for a couple days today on his show. The establishment is crooked and only in it for the money.

Rush explained that the federal government is viewed as a $3 trillion dollar piggy bank of tax payers dollars available every year. Our tax dollars are being exploited by these corporations and elected officials in Washington. It's not supposed to be obvious, the deep state is hidden. But doing this and analyzing/researching for years on end has led me to that conclusion.

It's always been there just under the surface. Never vote republican if you're in the middle class, you're only making the problem worse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I have amazing certainty about how the republican establishment works. Ironically, Rush laid out what I've been talking about for a couple days today on his show. The establishment is crooked and only in it for the money.

Rush explained that the federal government is viewed as a $3 trillion dollar piggy bank of tax payers dollars available every year. Our tax dollars are being exploited by these corporations and elected officials in Washington. It's not supposed to be obvious, the deep state is hidden. But doing this and analyzing/researching for years on end has led me to that conclusion.

It's always been there just under the surface. Never vote republican if you're in the middle class, you're only making the problem worse.

You're changing the subject.
I'm not going there.

 

[tytlyf]

You're changing the subject.
I'm not going there.

Just pointing out the reality of what the establishment agenda is.
Wouldn't you agree that the republican party represents corporations over the middle class? They even tell you that we need to give corporations huge tax breaks because that will give you a new job!

The whole party is crooked.

 

[averageJOE]

See, that's your only proof. And that wasn't a hawkish statement, it was a 'what if' statement. The republican party is supported by the MIC. The corporations in the MIC use republicans in government to profit. Which is why it's important to understand that voting republican typically leads to more conflicts and war. Certain corporations in America rely heavily on our tax payer dollars to profit off of. The government is a large piggy bank with money up for grabs.

It's all about greed/capitalism to these people. That's why republicans are hawks, it's who they're lobbied by and who they give 'deals' to.

Both parties are different, not even close to being the same. One party supports corporate policy, the other represents the middle class worker. You won't find me voting republican while I'm in the middle class.

Do you really think she made only ONE no-fly zone comment??? That video I posted was her talking a mere 3 weeks ago, after Trump launched that missile attack. She had/has a strong stance on a Syria no-fly zone and had no problem talking about it even during the debates:

Hillary is a war hawk, she scared the hell out of people. Remember, she DID vote for the Iraq war.

If Hillary were president today the only difference would be instead of North Korea it would be Russia. And Rachel Maddow would be her biggest mouth piece.

 

[tytlyf]

Do you really think she made only ONE no-fly zone comment??? That video I posted was her talking a mere 3 weeks ago, after Trump launched that missile attack. She had/has a strong stance on a Syria no-fly zone and had no problem talking about it even during the debates:

Hillary is a war hawk, she scared the hell out of people. Remember, she DID vote for the Iraq war.

If Hillary were president today the only difference would be instead of North Korea it would be Russia. And Rachel Maddow would be her biggest mouth piece.

You missed the point. I'm talking about how the comment itself is justified as hawkish? Because of a 'what if' scenario? I guess Clinton was the only one who wanted a no-fly zone.

The 'hawkish' talking point was used by RW media in direct relation to the 'no-fly' comment. That comment was their justification that Clinton would start wars and was the hawkish candidate.

It's not hawkish to destroy Syria's air power with tomahawks I guess......wonder what the 'what if' comment of that would have been.

 

[averageJOE]

You missed the point. I'm talking about how the comment itself is justified as hawkish? Because of a 'what if' scenario? I guess Clinton was the only one who wanted a no-fly zone.

The 'hawkish' talking point was used by RW media in direct relation to the 'no-fly' comment. That comment was their justification that Clinton would start wars and was the hawkish candidate.

It's not hawkish to destroy Syria's air power with tomahawks I guess......wonder what the 'what if' comment of that would have been.

I still don't understand this "what if" stuff your talking about.

And, why do we need to destroy Syria's air power?