12 replies to this topic

[ImperialOwl]

Worth a watch.

[8143FF763271]

The problem with aristocracies is that the people who fancy themselves more able to vote and make good political decisions tend to be pretty fucking dumb too. He's spot on on Americans' silly nationalism and military sensationalism (which is funny because the thing that he's most truthful about is probably the one thing that is going to piss people off- and prove him right) but his handling on diplomacy is myopic and way off. America is divided between two sets of people, both similarly ignorant to what the world needs. The great thing about it is that the middle ground between them is way closer to reality than either side, and that's why democracy works.

[MEGAKICK]

As much as I have a love/hate relationship with conspiracy theories, I will agree that war = profit.


Also, I hate it when conspiracy videos, or something like Ancient Aliens, are put with uplifting/inspirational/badass music.

[8143FF763271]

Wars aren't necessarily about profit. A lot of them are, on the contrary, a waste of money we'll never see any monetary returns on.

[MEGAKICK]

From my absolute favourite film:

"Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace."

[8143FF763271]

War does tend to give people social cohesion... So do totalitarian dictators, racism, and cult leaders. There's just nothing really that positive about it.

[redlion]

Wars aren't necessarily about profit. A lot of them are, on the contrary, a waste of money we'll never see any monetary returns on.

The profit isn't for the country as a whole, dolt. The profit is for the defense corporations. They make money no matter who else makes or loses money. They make the tanks and bullets. Kinda hard to have a war without the military-industrial complex making money.

We get bent out of shape over the war for oil, but really, it doesn't matter why we're fighting, because the premise is the same. Overwhelming force and then a sustained battle of attrition with poor, third world citizens who cannot possibly win. We haven't had a real, idealistic war in 70 years.

From my absolute favourite film:

"Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace."

Is that the animatrix? Sounds like one of those shorts they did. Those were horrifying and fascinating at the same time. Very, very cool stuff. If indeed that was the reference you were making

Now that I've watched the video, a few additional thoughts.

First, I've posted that speech by Ike before. First mention ever, really, of the military industrial complex in history, and on live television too! If I would have known it was featured in this Joe Rogan video, I would have used synonyms in my earlier post.

Second, all his thoughts on the towers aside, I did find it interesting that we had planned to do exactly that in Northwood. Kinda crazy. I'm going to look into that, see what I can learn. I'd never heard of it until this video.

[8143FF763271]

The profit isn't for the country as a whole, dolt. The profit is for the defense corporations. They make money no matter who else makes or loses money. They make the tanks and bullets. Kinda hard to have a war without the military-industrial complex making money.

We get bent out of shape over the war for oil, but really, it doesn't matter why we're fighting, because the premise is the same. Overwhelming force and then a sustained battle of attrition with poor, third world citizens who cannot possibly win. We haven't had a real, idealistic war in 70 years.

And what's your take? That defense corporations RULE the entire world and get the government to throw away mass resources for their sake? We're arguing about the rationale of wars. Unless you're suggesting there's some ILLUMINATI CONSPIRACY at the hand of DEFENSE CORPORATIONS (which aren't even that lucrative) convincing the US government to go into war, your point is fucking moot... to say the least.

Do wars benefit defense corps? Derp. Sure. Does that mean that wars are waged for the profit of defense corps? No.

It doesn't matter why we're fighting? Give me a break. So if we're fighting to prevent a genocide, it's not OK if our opponents just happen to be weaker/poorer than us? Oh, lord.

Edited by kami12, 19 August 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[MEGAKICK]

Is that the animatrix? Sounds like one of those shorts they did. Those were horrifying and fascinating at the same time. Very, very cool stuff. If indeed that was the reference you were making

Actually it's from Equilibrium. Unfortunately I havent seen any of the Animatrix shorts, but I've always been meaning to I'd highly recommend giving Equilibrium a watch. It explores a post WW3 era where society has determined that emotions is responsible for wars and inequality, so they've synthesized a chemical suppressant of emotions in order to live in a more 'peaceful' society. The film is underrated due to it coming out right around when The Matrix came out, but I think it's just an amazing movie (i've rewatched it 30+ times ). Did I mention Christian Bale is in it?

[redlion]

And what's your take? That defense corporations RULE the entire world and get the government to throw away mass resources for their sake?

No, that's not my take. But thanks for illustrating a point we (myself and other members of the board) have been trying to make about your argumentative style. Making your opponent into a strawman by putting words in his mouth is not really a great way to argue. It's rather juvenile actually.

But on to your opinion.

No, there is not an illuminati conspiracy, but there is most certainly a cozy relationship between defense and government. When a sitting president takes the time to warn his country about the MIC on the eve of leaving office, doesn't it merit consideration? You're dismissing out of hand a well established fact about military relations in this country.

Defense corporations do indeed convince governments to go to war. It's called the revolving door. In liberal usage, it can mean anyone in Washington that leaves office to join a consulting, lobbying, or interest group. In this instance, I'm referring specifically to the staggering amount of generals, officers, and even enlisted men who leave service and make buku dollars advising corporations on how best to get the government to buy defense materiel, and then use it (so that they can buy more).

For a specific example, one need only look at Cheney's crew making hundreds of millions of dollars for Halliburton by going to war under a false premise. Are you really arguing that this doesn't happen?

It might matter why we were fighting if we actually were preventing genocide. Unfortunately, we sit aside while genocides happen in Darfur, the Congo, Nigeria, The Philippines, Malaysia, Burma, and elsewhere in the world. We'd rather stake out the countries with vast mineral deposits and small, scattered, and divided populaces.

[8143FF763271]

No, that's not my take. But thanks for illustrating a point we (myself and other members of the board) have been trying to make about your argumentative style. Making your opponent into a strawman by putting words in his mouth is not really a great way to argue. It's rather juvenile actually.

But on to your opinion.

No, there is not an illuminati conspiracy, but there is most certainly a cozy relationship between defense and government. When a sitting president takes the time to warn his country about the MIC on the eve of leaving office, doesn't it merit consideration? You're dismissing out of hand a well established fact about military relations in this country.

Defense corporations do indeed convince governments to go to war. It's called the revolving door. In liberal usage, it can mean anyone in Washington that leaves office to join a consulting, lobbying, or interest group. In this instance, I'm referring specifically to the staggering amount of generals, officers, and even enlisted men who leave service and make buku dollars advising corporations on how best to get the government to buy defense materiel, and then use it (so that they can buy more).

For a specific example, one need only look at Cheney's crew making hundreds of millions of dollars for Halliburton by going to war under a false premise. Are you really arguing that this doesn't happen?

It might matter why we were fighting if we actually were preventing genocide. Unfortunately, we sit aside while genocides happen in Darfur, the Congo, Nigeria, The Philippines, Malaysia, Burma, and elsewhere in the world. We'd rather stake out the countries with vast mineral deposits and small, scattered, and divided populaces.

Halliburton? Don't you mean KBR, the company that the US forced Halliburton to sell off and that had its contract cancelled in Iraq? Surely, US government has a better way of helping its friends out than wasting billions of dollars on a war so that Halliburton would see jackshit from it. Exxo is making more money than Halliburton off the war... and we all know it wouldn't have made a difference to exxo if Saddam was still in place. And that's noting that NEVER in history has an US war depended on so much contracting as it did in the Iraq war. Alas, we were trying to save resources by resorting to the private sector.

Blah, blah, blah. It was a hypothetical situation. Of course the reason to go to war matters. That's all I was saying.

The US has business in the Middle East because they're the part of the world we clusterfucked during the cold war. The US has a long story of bad diplomatic relationships it has been trying to fix since Clinton (with Bush botching most of the job) and that's why the Middle East concerns us. Maybe we wouldn't have such a pathetically inefficient government if, like most developed nations, we didn't waste most of our taxes on the military. Alas, that's not a luxury we can afford when half of the globe hates us. We aren't looking to save the world. We're looking for redemption. The Congo isn't our concern. They don't blame us for their problems.

Edited by kami12, 19 August 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[redlion]

Good job ignoring literally everything that I spoke on, besides the superficial point singling out Halliburton.

Welcome to my ignore list. You're actually the first person ever.

[8143FF763271]

Good job ignoring literally everything that I spoke on, besides the superficial point singling out Halliburton.

Welcome to my ignore list. You're actually the first person ever.

Hey, man, not my fault you entertain the silly idea of thinking the US goes to war just so it can give a company a contract.