Banks too Big to Fail? How about Military Contractors Too Big for Peace?

[Occam's Razor]

We have been in a state of nearly perpetual war for most of the last 70 years. We are currently spending more than we did at our peak in WWII, and for four times as long, and none of the results.

If peace suddenly broke out, I wonder what would happen to these companies....

Rank (2010)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2009)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2008)	Company	Industry	Total
1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$35,828,421,340.83	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$38,512,401,433.23	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$34,955,972,832.62
2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,486,294,255.83	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$21,956,065,368.89	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$23,056,115,114.57
3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,797,921,451.22	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,654,882,647.82	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$20,911,547,618.33
4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,249,055,811.75	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$16,432,366,120.40	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,498,861,106.20
5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,245,234,506.52	5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,106,903,431.28	5	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,234,852,409.75
6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,721,459,648.98	6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,538,417,441.35	6	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$14,701,172,323.31
7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,445,106,575.43	7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,538,417,441.35	7	Emerson Construction Company	Construction	$13,951,282,017.40
8	Oshkosh Truck Corporation(NYSE: OSK)	Trucks andVehicles	$7,243,489,906.25	8	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$7,538,417,441.35	8	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$8,898,279,724.45
9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$6,796,280,361.66	9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$7,469,492,207.53	9	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$6,545,966,092.28
10	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$6,561,185,112.84

Top 100 Contractors

• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Army, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Navy, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Air Force, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Defense Logistics Agency, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Other Agencies, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies and Their Subsidiaries, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Companies, Defense Contractors, by Category of Procurement, 2002

Peace would seem to be very, very, very bad for business.

 

[DaveFagan]

We have been in a state of nearly perpetual war for most of the last 70 years. We are currently spending more than we did at our peak in WWII, and for four times as long, and none of the results.

If peace suddenly broke out, I wonder what would happen to these companies....

Rank (2010)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2009)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2008)	Company	Industry	Total
1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$35,828,421,340.83	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$38,512,401,433.23	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$34,955,972,832.62
2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,486,294,255.83	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$21,956,065,368.89	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$23,056,115,114.57
3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,797,921,451.22	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,654,882,647.82	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$20,911,547,618.33
4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,249,055,811.75	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$16,432,366,120.40	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,498,861,106.20
5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,245,234,506.52	5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,106,903,431.28	5	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,234,852,409.75
6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,721,459,648.98	6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,538,417,441.35	6	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$14,701,172,323.31
7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,445,106,575.43	7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,538,417,441.35	7	Emerson Construction Company	Construction	$13,951,282,017.40
8	Oshkosh Truck Corporation(NYSE: OSK)	Trucks andVehicles	$7,243,489,906.25	8	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$7,538,417,441.35	8	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$8,898,279,724.45
9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$6,796,280,361.66	9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$7,469,492,207.53	9	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$6,545,966,092.28
10	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$6,561,185,112.84

Top 100 Contractors

• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Army, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Navy, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Air Force, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Defense Logistics Agency, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Other Agencies, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies and Their Subsidiaries, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Companies, Defense Contractors, by Category of Procurement, 2002

Peace would seem to be very, very, very bad for business.

War is good business and business is good. Now we have a fantasmic war on terror and they keep on getting the money. Won't we ever get a peace candidate who wants to kill these leeches on the body America? Pull the plug, switch to 100% renewables and call it an economic restart because it would be. Caution, let's not do anything sensible. After all, the "too big to fail" corporations might go belly up to the detriment of the whole world. Nope. War is not good business and neither are the friggin' banks. Drop us all into an economic morass and we'll survive. Screw the banks and the Military/Industrial/Corporate complex.

 

[Morality Games]

We have been in a state of nearly perpetual war for most of the last 70 years. We are currently spending more than we did at our peak in WWII, and for four times as long, and none of the results.

If peace suddenly broke out, I wonder what would happen to these companies....

Rank (2010)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2009)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2008)	Company	Industry	Total
1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$35,828,421,340.83	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$38,512,401,433.23	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$34,955,972,832.62
2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,486,294,255.83	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$21,956,065,368.89	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$23,056,115,114.57
3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,797,921,451.22	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,654,882,647.82	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$20,911,547,618.33
4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,249,055,811.75	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$16,432,366,120.40	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,498,861,106.20
5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,245,234,506.52	5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,106,903,431.28	5	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,234,852,409.75
6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,721,459,648.98	6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,538,417,441.35	6	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$14,701,172,323.31
7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,445,106,575.43	7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,538,417,441.35	7	Emerson Construction Company	Construction	$13,951,282,017.40
8	Oshkosh Truck Corporation(NYSE: OSK)	Trucks andVehicles	$7,243,489,906.25	8	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$7,538,417,441.35	8	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$8,898,279,724.45
9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$6,796,280,361.66	9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$7,469,492,207.53	9	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$6,545,966,092.28
10	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$6,561,185,112.84

Top 100 Contractors

• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Army, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Navy, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Air Force, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Defense Logistics Agency, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Other Agencies, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies and Their Subsidiaries, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Companies, Defense Contractors, by Category of Procurement, 2002

Peace would seem to be very, very, very bad for business.

That's what happens when you feed the military-industrial complex. It follows you home and there is no way to get rid of it.

Should have listened to Eisenhower.

 

[Morality Games]

We have been in a state of nearly perpetual war for most of the last 70 years. We are currently spending more than we did at our peak in WWII, and for four times as long, and none of the results.

If peace suddenly broke out, I wonder what would happen to these companies....

Rank (2010)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2009)	Company	Industry	Total	Rank (2008)	Company	Industry	Total
1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$35,828,421,340.83	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$38,512,401,433.23	1	Lockheed Martin Corporation(NYSE: LMT)	Aerospace andDefense	$34,955,972,832.62
2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,486,294,255.83	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$21,956,065,368.89	2	The Boeing Company(NYSE: BA)	Aerospace andDefense	$23,056,115,114.57
3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,797,921,451.22	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$19,654,882,647.82	3	Northrop Grumman Corporation(NYSE: NOC)	Aerospace andDefense	$20,911,547,618.33
4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,249,055,811.75	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$16,432,366,120.40	4	General Dynamics Corporation(NYSE: GD)	Defense	$15,498,861,106.20
5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,245,234,506.52	5	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$16,106,903,431.28	5	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$15,234,852,409.75
6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,721,459,648.98	6	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$7,538,417,441.35	6	Raytheon Company(NYSE: RTN)	Aerospace andDefense	$14,701,172,323.31
7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,445,106,575.43	7	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$7,538,417,441.35	7	Emerson Construction Company	Construction	$13,951,282,017.40
8	Oshkosh Truck Corporation(NYSE: OSK)	Trucks andVehicles	$7,243,489,906.25	8	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$7,538,417,441.35	8	United Technologies Corporation(NYSE: UTX)	Conglomerate	$8,898,279,724.45
9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$6,796,280,361.66	9	SAIC Inc.(NYSE: SAI)	Technology andDefense	$7,469,492,207.53	9	L-3 Communications Holdings Inc.(NYSE: LLL)	Communicationsand Defense	$6,545,966,092.28
10	BAE Systems plc(LSE: BA.)	Aerospace andDefense	$6,561,185,112.84

Top 100 Contractors

• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Army, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Navy, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, U.S. Air Force, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Defense Logistics Agency, 2002
• Top 50 Defense Contractors, Other Agencies, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Parent Companies and Their Subsidiaries, Defense Contractors, 2002
• Table of Top 100 Companies, Defense Contractors, by Category of Procurement, 2002

Peace would seem to be very, very, very bad for business.

That's what happens when you feed the military-industrial complex. It follows you home and there is no way to get rid of it.

Should have listened to Eisenhower.

 

[Fisher]

There are legitimate reasons to keep some of these companies around--especially Boeing, but it is a matter of how do we muster the will to downscale them by force since the unions will never accept it voluntarily. Peoplle on the left always complain about these big defense contractors, but when it comes to cutting salaries and jobs, the leftists unions become obstructionist to any down-sizing efforts.

 

[fmw]

There are legitimate reasons to keep some of these companies around--especially Boeing, but it is a matter of how do we muster the will to downscale them by force since the unions will never accept it voluntarily. Peoplle on the left always complain about these big defense contractors, but when it comes to cutting salaries and jobs, the leftists unions become obstructionist to any down-sizing efforts.

Curious. Who are you to downsize them? All that has to happen is that the US needs to quit waging war, bring the troops home and buy less war materiel. The companies will downsize themselves and adapt to whatever economic situation they face. These companies aren't the problem. They are just filling orders. The problem is in Washington DC.

 

[Fisher]

Curious. Who are you to downsize them? All that has to happen is that the US needs to quit waging war, bring the troops home and buy less war materiel. The companies will downsize themselves and adapt to whatever economic situation they face. These companies aren't the problem. They are just filling orders. The problem is in Washington DC.

My fanny. We have bailed these companies out before. The only reason Boeing still exists is because of the US government bailing them out. There is no reason they should exist except the national defense need to keep domestic aircraft manufacturing alive for the future. Boeing just cannot compete with airbus on the commercial aviation front in comparable aircraft because Boeing cannot deliver planes anywhere near the same price bracket as Airbus.

 

[blaxshep]

Killing is our business and business is good. Funny how liberals want to take guns from the people but think the government (The number one killer of all time) should be the only ones with guns.

 

[KevinKohler]

Won't happen without union busting and electoral reform. No senator, mayor, governor, etc, is EVER going to get elected without union support in the states where those companies are active (mostly the NE), ensuring that, war or no war, we'll keep building this crap.

CT is still building planes and subs the military doesn't want or need. That's a fact.

 

[fmw]

My fanny. We have bailed these companies out before. The only reason Boeing still exists is because of the US government bailing them out. There is no reason they should exist except the national defense need to keep domestic aircraft manufacturing alive for the future. Boeing just cannot compete with airbus on the commercial aviation front in comparable aircraft because Boeing cannot deliver planes anywhere near the same price bracket as Airbus.

Then stop bailing them out. The government shouldn't be in the bail out business at all.

 

[Blue_State]

Won't happen without union busting and electoral reform. No senator, mayor, governor, etc, is EVER going to get elected without union support in the states where those companies are active (mostly the NE), ensuring that, war or no war, we'll keep building this crap.

CT is still building planes and subs the military doesn't want or need. That's a fact.

Unfortunately, there isn't one person in CT who car redirect the enormous military complex we have here.

 

[specklebang]

Sure, if we had Conservatives in charge, they wouldn't initiate any wars. The GOP is really the peace party. :roll:

Killing is our business and business is good. Funny how liberals want to take guns from the people but think the government (The number one killer of all time) should be the only ones with guns.

 

[Dapper Andy]

We have been in a state of nearly perpetual war for most of the last 70 years.

Maybe on paper but in reality most members of this forum are far too young to know what war is outside of video games.

In reality, our military dominance has made war, as it has been known for human history, obsolete. There will never be anything that resembles WW I or WW II as long as we continue our military dominance and this is probably the single most peaceful time in world history.

There are definitely things we can do to reduce our military spending but liberals should probably open up a history book and read just how much of the population previously died in wars when there wasn't a superpower policing the world.

 

[blaxshep]

Sure, if we had Conservatives in charge, they wouldn't initiate any wars. The GOP is really the peace party. :roll:

I didn't say anything about that, but since you did, you might want to ask why Obama has more troops involved in more wars than Bush. I thought he was the bring them all home close gitmo Nobel prize winning benevolent democrat.

 

[specklebang]

Really?

We have more troops at war today than in 2008?

I didn't say anything about that, but since you did, you might want to ask why Obama has more troops involved in more wars than Bush. I thought he was the bring them all home close gitmo Nobel prize winning benevolent democrat.

 

[blaxshep]

Really?

We have more troops at war today than in 2008?

Not today but he certainly escalated the wars in 2009 and 2010 after running on ending them, but keep making excuses.

 

[specklebang]

So, are you bragging or complaining?

Didn't you approve of the "surge" strategy first hused by Bush and then gain by Obama? Are you pleased the wars are ending or unhappy?

I'm really not understanding your position on this. I know you hate Obama but you can't logically both approve and disapprove of something at the same time. So which is it?

Not today but he certainly escalated the wars in 2009 and 2010 after running on ending them, but keep making excuses.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Maybe on paper but in reality most members of this forum are far too young to know what war is outside of video games.

You can separate social impacts from policy, economy and gov't, can't you? The "on paper" IS the reality, the illusion is what the kiddies "know". Whether the kids know it or not, it's about war time powers of gov't, it's about perpetual war policy, it's about creating a military complex that can't exist on readiness, but must have war to survive.

In reality, our military dominance has made war, as it has been known for human history, obsolete. There will never be anything that resembles WW I or WW II as long as we continue our military dominance and this is probably the single most peaceful time in world history.

In reality, the use of our military for dominance has made us a target. Open three theaters of war (China, middle east, south and central america) and we're toast.

Doesn't seem like insurgents, rebels and terrorists have done too badly using obsolete war. Ten years and a couple trillion dollars and we couldn't put down two third world countries? And damn good thing, your fantasy of no more WW... we don't have the manufacturing base to fight a full on world war. China does. And even if we did, they would have far more resources, still have four times the manufacturing, and labor/fighting force.

There are definitely things we can do to reduce our military spending but liberals should probably open up a history book and read just how much of the population previously died in wars when there wasn't a superpower policing the world.

I would suggest that you open a few books yourself... on the whole of human history. Without that knowledge, one cannot fully appreciate the wisdom (if personally flawed) of the founders. This is the knowledge that bore the warnings of standing armies being a greater threat to our liberties than any foreign nation. That when super powers have subdued their foreign foes, they begin to see enemies from within. That we should always strive for peace and neutrality, and that in times of peace, our armies are brought to a bare minimum.

Any decision taken or opinion formed without that treasure of historical human knowledge, from hard lessons unlearned until the birth of this nation, is one formed in blind and dangerous ignorance. Never, in the whole of human history, never has there been a dominate militarized power that has not become tyrannical to it's own people. Unless you count the ones that were bankrupted by perpetual war and occupation, and policing... first. There is nothing new under the sun... human nature does not change. Tyranny always seeks power, and there is never any more power than in the military.

I'm not sure what history "books" you're reading, but your understanding of history is about as deep as a book jacket.

 

[Dapper Andy]

You can separate social impacts from policy, economy and gov't, can't you? The "on paper" IS the reality, the illusion is what the kiddies "know". Whether the kids know it or not, it's about war time powers of gov't, it's about perpetual war policy, it's about creating a military complex that can't exist on readiness, but must have war to survive.



In reality, the use of our military for dominance has made us a target. Open three theaters of war (China, middle east, south and central america) and we're toast.

Doesn't seem like insurgents, rebels and terrorists have done too badly using obsolete war. Ten years and a couple trillion dollars and we couldn't put down two third world countries? And damn good thing, your fantasy of no more WW... we don't have the manufacturing base to fight a full on world war. China does. And even if we did, they would have far more resources, still have four times the manufacturing, and labor/fighting force.



I would suggest that you open a few books yourself... on the whole of human history. Without that knowledge, one cannot fully appreciate the wisdom (if personally flawed) of the founders. This is the knowledge that bore the warnings of standing armies being a greater threat to our liberties than any foreign nation. That when super powers have subdued their foreign foes, they begin to see enemies from within. That we should always strive for peace and neutrality, and that in times of peace, our armies are brought to a bare minimum.

Any decision taken or opinion formed without that treasure of historical human knowledge, from hard lessons unlearned until the birth of this nation, is one formed in blind and dangerous ignorance. Never, in the whole of human history, never has there been a dominate militarized power that has not become tyrannical to it's own people. Unless you count the ones that were bankrupted by perpetual war and occupation, and policing... first. There is nothing new under the sun... human nature does not change. Tyranny always seeks power, and there is never any more power than in the military.

I'm not sure what history "books" you're reading, but your understanding of history is about as deep as a book jacket.

Sure.

Because there was a coherent thought in anything you posted.

:roll:

 

[Occam's Razor]

Sure.

Because there was a coherent thought in anything you posted.

:roll:

Really? What part did you have trouble with?

I apologize I stepped outside the sphere of soundbyte politics... I can see how you might get easily confused

Was it the part where I corrected you that whether kids know there is war is irrelevant to the reality that there is?

Was it the part where I pointed out that we haven't actually won a conflict, obsolete or otherwise since WWII?

Was it the part where our lack of manufacturing necessary for world war is missing?

Was it the part that schooled you on the historical constants of human nature that the founders knew... and you don't?

What part did you have a problem comprehending?

 

[blaxshep]

So, are you bragging or complaining?

Didn't you approve of the "surge" strategy first hused by Bush and then gain by Obama? Are you pleased the wars are ending or unhappy?

I'm really not understanding your position on this. I know you hate Obama but you can't logically both approve and disapprove of something at the same time. So which is it?

What I disapprove of is Obama running on the lie that he would end the wars and bring the troops home only to escalate them and get involved in even more conflicts as well as the lie about gitmo. He is the Nobel peace prize winning commander and chief and regardless of the consequences if he really meant what he ran on he could have lowered his hand from taking the oath of office and them immediately recalled every single American troop from around the world. It doesn't really matter if I am for or against the war, what I am against is a lying sack of ****. You want to talk about logically both approving and disapproving of something at the same time. Why is it with Bush "he lied and people died" but with Obama everything is fine. The Obama death toll on American troops is twice that of Bush wake up!

 

[polisciguy]

The reality of the military-industrial complex is quite an interesting discussion, indeed.

 

[Northern Light]

There is plenty of evidence that cronyism and nepotism from the military-industrial complex played a heavy role in the push for the Iraq war. That, and the oil industry. Given the obvious pattern, they probably also had a hand in why the Bush administration ignored early warnings that a 9/11 level event would take place on U.S. soil. The outcome was just too profitable. Our wars might as well be branded by corporations. "Operation Iraqi Freedom, brought to you by Haliburton™"

It's all about making a select group of people fabulously wealthy, which is why the war continues in perpetuity despite the nation's economy turning into a sink hole. The history of democratic nations shows that there is always an ongoing struggle between equality of the People and power grabs by the aristocracy. Right now, the aristocracy are winning.

 

[specklebang]

I don't know if you've seen my other posts (for which I caught some flak) praising Bush 41 for his Gulf war. Why? Because he went in, got the job done and returned home. Obama has only had one war of his own, Libya, and I thought it was well handled. Just to reassure you I'm not an Obamabot, I'll praise Reagan for Grenada and Panama. Missions accomplished, no decade long involvement.

I really don't want to get too far off track but my issue with Bush 43 was the occupation of Iraq, not the attack on Iraq. No purpose, no objectives, no timeline. Just profits for Halliburton et al.

I don't like war but if you must have one, and you're 100 times bigger than the other guy, smack him and go home.

What I disapprove of is Obama running on the lie that he would end the wars and bring the troops home only to escalate them and get involved in even more conflicts as well as the lie about gitmo. He is the Nobel peace prize winning commander and chief and regardless of the consequences if he really meant what he ran on he could have lowered his hand from taking the oath of office and them immediately recalled every single American troop from around the world. It doesn't really matter if I am for or against the war, what I am against is a lying sack of ****. You want to talk about logically both approving and disapproving of something at the same time. Why is it with Bush "he lied and people died" but with Obama everything is fine. The Obama death toll on American troops is twice that of Bush wake up!

 

[Occam's Razor]

I don't know if you've seen my other posts (for which I caught some flak) praising Bush 41 for his Gulf war. Why? Because he went in, got the job done and returned home. Obama has only had one war of his own, Libya, and I thought it was well handled. Just to reassure you I'm not an Obamabot, I'll praise Reagan for Grenada and Panama. Missions accomplished, no decade long involvement.

I really don't want to get too far off track but my issue with Bush 43 was the occupation of Iraq, not the attack on Iraq. No purpose, no objectives, no timeline. Just profits for Halliburton et al.

I don't like war but if you must have one, and you're 100 times bigger than the other guy, smack him and go home.

I agree with your last statement, however... none of the wars you mentioned were legitimate. We goaded Saddam into a proxy war with Iran, armed and funded yet another brutal dictator, then pulled a bait and switch with Kuwait. The war crimes alleged against the Kuwaitis were knowingly fabricated.

Grenanda and Panama were part of an overall attempt to keep economic and political control through passive puppet gov'ts. After centuries of colonial rule by france and england, their resources and labor plundered, there was revolution. The first prime minister instituted housing developments, healthcare, raised literacy from 50% to 98%, paid for foreign university education.... and had an airport built by Cubans, funded by britain. That was our excuse. Commies built their runway, with capitalist funds.

Our only goal in Grenada was to replace the gov't with one that would stop giving money to it's people, and send it to us...