cant_grip (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cant_grip) wrote,@ 2008-07-08 12:28:00 |
|
Head in the Sand #1
Why has the U.S. been at war, consistently, since the end of WWII?
Do we fight for freedom? Only insomuch as freedom = free markets = we want our companies to make money in your country = economic colonialism = military imperialism, which is to say the reason we fight is a depressingly typical one: follow the money.
At the end of his second term, towards the end of WWII, in his farewell address President Eisenhower said the following about our new military-industrial complex (a phrase he coined) :
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
The refreshingly unbiased documentary, Why We Fight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fig
presents strong and verifiable evidence that we have failed to observe Eisenhower's edict. Our government has been dominated by forces seeking fuel for the military-economic machinery at the expense of all else. The essential message is this: when war becomes profitable, we're going to see more of it. Huge companies compete for government contracts. War is BIG business with a strongly vested corporate interest. There is a revolving door between public office and private enterprise, with people on both sides using connections to allocate government contracts. The most glaring example of this is vice president Dick Cheney using the war in Iraq to gain profitable contracts for Haliburton, a company he was CEO of for 5 years. I mustn't be distracted by the urge to rail against Cheney, though he surely is the vilest public official of my lifetime. For further reading: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s
The lesson of vietnam was, control the media, control what the public knows and control public opinion. At this point in history, a journalist can not make a career by questioning defense policy. As a result, there is very little public discussion about why we are in Iraq. Not to liberate the iraqi people (90,000 killed so far), not because of 9/11 (no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda), not for weapons of mass destruction (none found). We have spent over $500 billion in order to be there, so there must be a good reason... $500 billion worth of spending seems like a fairly compelling reason... Imagine what your business would do for a million dollar account? Human nature being what it is, is anyone surprised by corruption?
These subjects can be discoursed endlessly. I'm going beyond the scope of my humble, generally non-political blog. One more interesting link before I wrap it up, a web tool which calculates how the cost of various defense department expenditures might have been spent.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/trade
Why has the U.S. been at war, consistently, since the end of WWII?
Do we fight for freedom? Only insomuch as freedom = free markets = we want our companies to make money in your country = economic colonialism = military imperialism, which is to say the reason we fight is a depressingly typical one: follow the money.
At the end of his second term, towards the end of WWII, in his farewell address President Eisenhower said the following about our new military-industrial complex (a phrase he coined) :
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
The refreshingly unbiased documentary, Why We Fight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fig
presents strong and verifiable evidence that we have failed to observe Eisenhower's edict. Our government has been dominated by forces seeking fuel for the military-economic machinery at the expense of all else. The essential message is this: when war becomes profitable, we're going to see more of it. Huge companies compete for government contracts. War is BIG business with a strongly vested corporate interest. There is a revolving door between public office and private enterprise, with people on both sides using connections to allocate government contracts. The most glaring example of this is vice president Dick Cheney using the war in Iraq to gain profitable contracts for Haliburton, a company he was CEO of for 5 years. I mustn't be distracted by the urge to rail against Cheney, though he surely is the vilest public official of my lifetime. For further reading: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/cheney_s
The lesson of vietnam was, control the media, control what the public knows and control public opinion. At this point in history, a journalist can not make a career by questioning defense policy. As a result, there is very little public discussion about why we are in Iraq. Not to liberate the iraqi people (90,000 killed so far), not because of 9/11 (no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda), not for weapons of mass destruction (none found). We have spent over $500 billion in order to be there, so there must be a good reason... $500 billion worth of spending seems like a fairly compelling reason... Imagine what your business would do for a million dollar account? Human nature being what it is, is anyone surprised by corruption?
These subjects can be discoursed endlessly. I'm going beyond the scope of my humble, generally non-political blog. One more interesting link before I wrap it up, a web tool which calculates how the cost of various defense department expenditures might have been spent.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/trade
