The Profit of War

[Revoltingest]

Some posters here don't listen to what Putin says, they're too busy putting their own words into Putin's mouth. Nato got the war it wanted with Russia, and it has nothing to do with winning anything, it's all about selling arms and turning profits. It's a win win for everyone except for Ukrainians and Russians.

Your logic & evidence are indisputable.

 

[lukethethird]

$61 Billion to Ukraine. The cost of war?
Think of it this way, someone is getting that $61 billion to continue the war.

Should the US be supporting the continuation of war?

Another $26 billion to Israel so the war against Iran can continue. I wonder who benefits?
Certainly not the Israelis, Palestinians, Ukrainians or Russians who die in these wars.

The hatred for Russia stems from fear. The cold war, which was basically a one sided war in the minds of westerners, fueled this fear and hatred through propaganda which continues to this day. Personally I don't have a stake in this Nato exploited border dispute between Russia and Ukraine, but I do hate knowing that even more Palestinians, Russians, and Ukraines have to die so that war profiteers can line their pockets.

 

[Nakosis]

The hatred for Russia stems from fear. The cold war, which was basically a one sided war in the minds of westerners, fueled this fear and hatred through propaganda which continues to this day. Personally I don't have a stake in this Nato exploited border dispute between Russia and Ukraine, but I do hate knowing that even more Palestinians, Russians, and Ukraines have to die so that war profiteers can line their pockets.

Yes, war is bad. Death, destruction and the need to rebuild afterwards. It should be opposed by rational people. Unfortunately governments find justification for it and the means to convince people of the need.

 

[Nakosis]

Some posters here don't listen to what Putin says, they're too busy putting their own words into Putin's mouth. Nato got the war it wanted with Russia, and it has nothing to do with winning anything, it's all about selling arms and turning profits. It's a win win for everyone except for Ukrainians and Russians.

It's a win for the people who profit from war. Folks usually complain about crony capitalism except when it comes to war it seems.

 

[PureX]

Of course the greedsters love a good long war, because they can make lots of money selling the weapons of death and destruction. But that does not mean that all warfare is the result of the greedsters greed. Unfortunately, warfare is occasionally necessary to keep they would-be tyrants and bully boys from inflicting the murder and mayhem on everyone else that they so badly want to inflict.

There is nothing good about warfare. No one wins, not even the greedsters, in the end. But sometimes it is unfortunately necessary to resort to warfare to serve the greater good in the long run. That we allow the greedsters to profit from it is our own fault. That we allow them to create strife and prolong wars for their own profit is likewise our own fault. But neither should we become selfish cowards when warfare is called for in the service of the greater good.

Selfish cowards. Is that what we have become in this country, now? Because of our own greed?

 

[Nakosis]

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
It doesn't prove a MIC conspiracy theory because
an alternative explanation with predictive power
is that voters elect leaders who support foreign
policy & military adventurism to support allies
(eg, Taiwan) & to keep enemies (eg, China) at bay.

And what constitutes a "proxy war"?
Is assisting Ukraine a proxy war against Russia
(per MIC conspiracy theorists), or is it defense of
a country because it's worthy & also a bulwark
against further Russian conquest in the region?

"Proxy war" be read into just about any conflict
if one ignores alternative motives.

Who made a specific prediction (before Russia
began mobilizing men & materiel for it)?

Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.” It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.

George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

In his memoir, Duty, Robert M Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”. Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995.

Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia

Awareness isn't the same as causing.

What I see is voters who refuse to take responsibility
for electing hawks. They blame nefarious conspiracies
for leaders making war. Both parties in their primaries
rejected the peaceniks for the likes of Obama, Hillary,
Genocide Joe, & Dozing Donny.
Conspiracy theorists claim the voters have no say because
the dark forces control the media. Yet I saw mainstream
media providing info to discern who is more hawkish
than whom.


The same predictions can be made based upon voter
preferences for electing & re-electing hawks.

Voters vote. I just see how easily we can be influenced by media. It is were we get all our information from. I've looked into the manipulation of the media on both side to lack much trust in any of it.

Conspiracies are indeed possible.
But one can't leap to belief just because something
will confirm that bias. Example...
I hear conservatives say that Marxists control our
government to take God out of government &
society...to impose ever more liberal agendas.
Their theory has verifiable predictions too.


Duh.
You prefer the MIC conspiracy explanation for wars.
But were it so, USA would have far more military
adventurism in Africa, which is very ripe for conflict.

I suspect I'd be difficult to get the American public to show much interest in what is happening in Africa.
Or I guess that is not true, if the media decided to focus on it I'm sure we could be easily influenced to pick a side.

In any case a conspiracy is not necessary. Just vested interests, and political influence to justify going to war.

I see other factors, eg...
Religion fueling Israel's genocide.
Religion fueling USA's assisting genocide.
Conquest fueling Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Conquest fueling China's conquest of Tibet, Taiwan, & S China Sea.
Even USA's conquest of other countries had better explanations,
eg, taking or controlling territory (eg, Philippines), vengeance (eg,
Afghanistan), nation building (eg, Iraq).

These seem vague reasons to go to war to me. Conquests but why? We have a global economy. There is no longer a need to fight over resources.
Conquest alone lacks any justification.

Now here's the part where I'll become particularly offensive.
I believe that liberals blame the MIC conspiracy because....
1) They want no responsibility for wars their leaders wage.
2) They blame arms makers because of anti-capitalist sentiment.
3) It's simple & enticing. Every war has arms makers profiting.
So confirmation bias is strong.

I'm not offended. I'm not looking for political justifications.
However I'll admit to a bias. I have a bias against war.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course the greedsters love a good long war, because they can make lots of money selling the weapons of death and destruction. But that does not mean that all warfare is the result of the greedsters greed. Unfortunately, warfare is occasionally necessary to keep they would-be tyrants and bully boys from inflicting the murder and mayhem on everyone else that they so badly want to inflict.

There is nothing good about warfare. No one wins, not even the greedsters, in the end. But sometimes it is unfortunately necessary to resort to warfare to serve the greater good in the long run. That we allow the greedsters to profit from it is our own fault. That we allow them to create strife and prolong wars for their own profit is likewise our own fault. But neither should we become selfish cowards when warfare is called for in the service of the greater good.

Selfish cowards. Is that what we have become in this country, now? Because of our own greed?

As Eisenhower said, the only way to combat this is through an informed public.
However that, imo, becomes a problem when much of our media is in the pocket of politicians.

 

[PureX]

As Eisenhower said, the only way to combat this is through an informed public.
However that, imo, becomes a problem when much of our media is in the pocket of politicians.

The media is not in the pocket of the politicians. It's owned and controlled by the same oligarchs that own and control the politicians. Which is far, far more dangerous. Because these greedsters are now running things, and they are controlling the information that the people use to determine a preferred course of action. The greedsters can and have started unnecessarily wars for their own profit. And they will continue to do this so long as they keep getting away with it. They don't care who dies, or how many, so long as they're getting those big profit margins.

Nevertheless, necessary wars will still sometimes occur. The question is will we be able to tell the difference now that the greedsters control the all information we get? And sadly, it looks like we won't be able to. We are not able to. They barrage us with conflicting information so we can't tell who is lying to us. And we don't know what to think. So we just think whatever we like.

This is all not going to end well for anyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state, similarly described the Russian attitude. “Many Russians see Nato as a vestige of the cold war, inherently directed against their country. They point out that they have disbanded the Warsaw Pact, their military alliance, and ask why the west should not do the same.” It was an excellent question, and neither the Clinton administration nor its successors provided even a remotely convincing answer.

George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

In his memoir, Duty, Robert M Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W Bush and Barack Obama, stated his belief that “the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George HW] Bush left office in 1993”. Among other missteps, “US agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into Nato was truly overreaching”. That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests”.

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter

Biden’s CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995.

Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia




Voters vote. I just see how easily we can be influenced by media. It is were we get all our information from. I've looked into the manipulation of the media on both side to lack much trust in any of it.



I suspect I'd be difficult to get the American public to show much interest in what is happening in Africa.
Or I guess that is not true, if the media decided to focus on it I'm sure we could be easily influenced to pick a side.

In any case a conspiracy is not necessary. Just vested interests, and political influence to justify going to war.



These seem vague reasons to go to war to me. Conquests but why? We have a global economy. There is no longer a need to fight over resources.
Conquest alone lacks any justification.



I'm not offended. I'm not looking for political justifications.
However I'll admit to a bias. I have a bias against war.

I've nothing to add.

 

[lukethethird]

As Eisenhower said, the only way to combat this is through an informed public.
However that, imo, becomes a problem when much of our media is in the pocket of politicians.

Not in the pocket of politicians, but rather, the mainstream corporate media shares in the same corporate elitist interests as members of congress. Corporate media is part and parcel of the military industrial complex, by way of mind manipulation it garners support of the masses for war efforts such as mass approval for spending billions of dollars in arms for the causes in Ukraine and Israel.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not in the pocket of politicians, but rather, the mainstream corporate media shares in the same corporate elitist interests as members of congress. Corporate media is part and parcel of the military industrial complex, by way of mind manipulation it garners support of the masses for war efforts such as mass approval for spending billions of dollars in arms for the causes in Ukraine and Israel.

Would you prefer to let Putin conquer Ukraine?

 

[lukethethird]

Would you prefer to let Putin conquer Ukraine?

Putin stated going in that he did not want to control Ukraine, he stated that he sent the troops in to secure the easternmost regions including the Donbas. Were you of the impression that Putin set out to conquer Ukraine?, by conservative estimates, he would have had to have sent in more than three times the number of troops if that were the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Putin stated going in that he did not want to control Ukraine, he stated that he sent the troops in to secure the easternmost regions including the Donbas.

Oh, well if Putin said so....
Trump followers...just what is the appeal of Putin?

 

[lukethethird]

Oh, well if Putin said so....
Trump followers...just what is the appeal of Putin?

I know you would rather put your own words into Putin's mouth but that is what he stated and that is what has taken place. I don't like what he has done anymore than you do but the difference is, I listen to what leaders of any given country say and decide when they are lying, rather than listen to the words that are put into their mouths by other people.

 

[Heyo]

Putin stated going in that he did not want to control Ukraine, he stated that he sent the troops in to secure the easternmost regions including the Donbas.

And you believe him? The troops were marching towards Kyiv.

Were you of the impression that Putin set out to conquer Ukraine?, by conservative estimates, he would have had to have sent in more than three times the number of troops if that were the case.

He was under the delusional impression that the Ukrainian people would welcome him with open arms, like the people in Crimea did.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know you would rather put your own words into Putin's mouth but that is what he stated and that is what has taken place. I don't like what he has done anymore than you do but the difference is, I listen to what leaders of any given country say and decide when they are lying, rather than listen to the words that are put into their mouths by other people.

One can judge by Putin's actions...
as long as one isn't enthralled with
him, & believes him.

Putin stated going in that he did not want to control Ukraine, he stated that he sent the troops in to secure the easternmost regions including the Donbas. Were you of the impression that Putin set out to conquer Ukraine?, by conservative estimates, he would have had to have sent in more than three times the number of troops if that were the case.

Putin says....
How far conservatives have fallen
that they place in Putin's honesty.