• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How To Profit From War

Abram Jones

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Location
Wisconsin (WI)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
note: this is not pro or anti war text, just a brief explanation of the simple economic mechanics behind war (explanation and examples in video below).

Because of destruction war creates demand for many types of products and services, and therefore creates many business opportunities no matter how small or large the conflict is. As long as civilization is still standing at the end of the conflict it is guaranteed that someone somewhere will be profiting from it despite all of the people who will be losing from it. This carries heavy implications of potential corruption on a mass scale.

Who Can Profit
  • individuals, groups, or entire economies of a specific region or regions
  • direct proponents of the war
  • opportunists
  • groups or individuals indirectly related to the war effort or post war economy
  • groups in both public or private sectors
  • usually individuals or groups on the winning side or are neutral in the conflict profit, but this is not always the case


Specific Examples Of How To Profit
  • producing, selling, or delivering arms, fuel, technology, training, food, military aide, healthcare, security, vehicles, equipment, or other products and services related to the war effort
  • investing in corporations who have been contracted to produce, sell, or deliver products, services, or technologies listed above
  • starting a business that provides products or services to the contracted business or investing in corporations that provide products or services to the contracted businesses
  • make loans to the businesses noted above, or to governments, private militias, or other businesses that will be needing products or services related to the war effort
  • seize or monetize on resources of conquered territory or invest in new or demolished corporations that will be rebuilding the infrastructure around these resources. some examples of valuable post war resources are food, lumber, iron ore, arms, fuel, technology, education, drugs, prostitutes (including sex slavery), and new forms of currency
  • makes loans to governments or businesses directly rebuilding the infrastructure of a destroyed region, or businesses importing products or services that are in demand in the destroyed region



 
What amazes me is how easily they convinced the public to go to war in a foreign land with a country that never attacked us. The Iraq war had US Imperialism and war profiteering written all over it from the very start. If Obama hadn't been elected we'd probably be at war with Iran, Russia, China, N. Korea and a holy war with all of Islam by now. And the only justification would be..."they hate us for our freedom".
 
Last edited:
What amazes me is how easily they convinced the public to go to war in a foreign land with a country that never attacked us. The Iraq war had US Imperialism and war profiteering written all over it from the very start. If Obama hadn't been elected we'd probably be at war with Iran, Russia, China, N. Korea and a holy war with all of Islam by now. And the only justification would be..."they hate us for our freedom".

Wow. The hyperbole in your post is so thick, I could cut it with a knife!
 
What amazes me is how easily they convinced the public to go to war in a foreign land with a country that never attacked us. The Iraq war had US Imperialism and war profiteering written all over it from the very start. If Obama hadn't been elected we'd probably be at war with Iran, Russia, China, N. Korea and a holy war with all of Islam by now. And the only justification would be..."they hate us for our freedom".

:roll:

Poor Saddam. All he wanted to do was snatch other countries' land and gas Kurds in peace. Poor, poor Saddam.

Any other hysterics you want to go into?
 
Wow. The hyperbole in your post is so thick, I could cut it with a knife!
AEI foreign policy advisors to Bush and Romney....


" AEI's foreign and defense policy studies researchers focus on "how political and economic freedom—as well as American interests—are best promoted around the world".[37] AEI staff have tended to be advocates of a hard U.S. line on threats or potential threats to the United States, including the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia, and terrorist or militant groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Political_stance_and_impact


"...Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee did a good bipartisan job of explaining that the intelligence in general was dubious, old and even faked by foreign sources. The panel said the analysts had suffered from groupthink. At the time, the highest-ranking officials in Washington were demanding evidence against Iraq.

But that left this question: If the intelligence was so bad and so moldy, why was it presented to the world as what Mr. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, famously called "a slam-dunk" case?..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html?_r=0

It was a "slam dunk," alright. Taxpayers and veterans are still paying for that dirty little war...but the traitors and war profiteers aren't.
 
AEI foreign policy advisors to Bush and Romney....


" AEI's foreign and defense policy studies researchers focus on "how political and economic freedom—as well as American interests—are best promoted around the world".[37] AEI staff have tended to be advocates of a hard U.S. line on threats or potential threats to the United States, including the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the People's Republic of China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia, and terrorist or militant groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute#Political_stance_and_impact


"...Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee did a good bipartisan job of explaining that the intelligence in general was dubious, old and even faked by foreign sources. The panel said the analysts had suffered from groupthink. At the time, the highest-ranking officials in Washington were demanding evidence against Iraq.

But that left this question: If the intelligence was so bad and so moldy, why was it presented to the world as what Mr. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, famously called "a slam-dunk" case?..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/opinion/remember-that-mushroom-cloud.html?_r=0

It was a "slam dunk," alright. Taxpayers and veterans are still paying for that dirty little war...but the traitors and war profiteers aren't.

Okay, do you actually think we would have gone to war with the other two world powers simultaneously, in addition to declaring war on a religion?
 
:roll:

Poor Saddam. All he wanted to do was snatch other countries' land and gas Kurds in peace. Poor, poor Saddam.

Any other hysterics you want to go into?
The gas used on the Kurds came from US and Germany.

Saddam was the only one that kept the region stabilized and Al Qaeda out of Iraq. US didn't go into Iraq to bring democracy...they went in with a 'divide and rule policy' to pit the Sunni and Shia against each other in order to gain power over Iraq's oil....just like the European Imperialists did in Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule#Middle_East


Our politicians are using "divide and rule" to stay in power and steal the wealth of the middle class as well.
 
Okay, do you actually think we would have gone to war with the other two world powers simultaneously, in addition to declaring war on a religion?

AEI was really pushing for war with Iran almost as soon as US put boots on the ground in Iraq. Aside from destabilizing the entire region and instigating a sectarian war...it would've upset Russia. Meanwhile, John Bolton was pushing for a war with N. Korea. So yeah, if another Republican president was elected...I have little doubt we would be at war all over the world...and probably alone in our efforts...and going bankrupt because the debt would far exceed tax revenue.
 
The gas used on the Kurds came from US and Germany.

Saddam was the only one that kept the region stabilized and Al Qaeda out of Iraq. US didn't go into Iraq to bring democracy...they went in with a 'divide and rule policy' to pit the Sunni and Shia against each other in order to gain power over Iraq's oil....just like the European Imperialists did in Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule#Middle_East


Our politicians are using "divide and rule" to stay in power and steal the wealth of the middle class as well.

Yep. And Saddam's tanks and aircraft came from Russia and France. So?

It was still his decision to use it on the Kurds.

Saddam armed a number of terrorist groups. Palestinians, Iranians mostly.
 
Yep. And Saddam's tanks and aircraft came from Russia and France. So?

It was still his decision to use it on the Kurds.

Saddam armed a number of terrorist groups. Palestinians, Iranians mostly.

So what? Does the Iran-Contra scandal ring a bell? Central America is still reeling from US "divide and rule" policy for the profits of US corporations. And don't forget the Taliban...

"...During this war, ISI worked in close coordination with the Central Intelligence Agency. The later provided strategic and intelligence support to the Afghan Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990s.[1] Ex Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief, India AS Dulat,Aditya Sinha in Sep 2015, admitted that ISI is the most powerful Intelligence agency in the world...."​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence


The US only cared about the gassing of the Kurds when it became a convenient excuse for war 15 years later.
 
AEI was really pushing for war with Iran almost as soon as US put boots on the ground in Iraq. Aside from destabilizing the entire region and instigating a sectarian war...it would've upset Russia. Meanwhile, John Bolton was pushing for a war with N. Korea. So yeah, if another Republican president was elected...I have little doubt we would be at war all over the world...and probably alone in our efforts...and going bankrupt because the debt would far exceed tax revenue.

...I'll admit, that does sound pretty damning. Do you have a link to back that up, or do I need to sift through news sources on my own to verify all of those parts?
 
So what? Does the Iran-Contra scandal ring a bell? Central America is still reeling from US "divide and rule" policy for the profits of US corporations. And don't forget the Taliban...

"...During this war, ISI worked in close coordination with the Central Intelligence Agency. The later provided strategic and intelligence support to the Afghan Taliban against the Northern Alliance in the civil war in Afghanistan in the 1990s.[1] Ex Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) chief, India AS Dulat,Aditya Sinha in Sep 2015, admitted that ISI is the most powerful Intelligence agency in the world...."​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence


The US only cared about the gassing of the Kurds when it became a convenient excuse for war 15 years later.

Uh....no, actually. The gassing of the Kurds played a big part in the establishment of the no fly zone over Northern Iraq.
People have known for years that the ISI is playing for both sides. Unless your advocating invading Pakistan to destroy it, I don't know what you want to do. The Taliban only emerged out of the Mujahideen until after the Soviet Afghan War.

But India is always going to be overly impressed by the ISI. After all, a big part of the ISI's job is causing problems for India.

Central America is still reeling from the attempts of communist guerillas to seize power as well. Look at Cuba or, to use a similar example, Venezuela for examples of why that wouldn't be a good thing.
 
Uh....no, actually. The gassing of the Kurds played a big part in the establishment of the no fly zone over Northern Iraq.
People have known for years that the ISI is playing for both sides. Unless your advocating invading Pakistan to destroy it, I don't know what you want to do. The Taliban only emerged out of the Mujahideen until after the Soviet Afghan War.

But India is always going to be overly impressed by the ISI. After all, a big part of the ISI's job is causing problems for India.

Central America is still reeling from the attempts of communist guerillas to seize power as well. Look at Cuba or, to use a similar example, Venezuela for examples of why that wouldn't be a good thing.

At first, the northern NFZ was largely a British effort (Operation Haven and Operation to Provide Comfort) because the US didn't want to get more involved.

The Sandinista's were Democrat Socialists and it was Reagans illegally funded, armed and CIA trained Contra mercenary death squads that were trying to over throw a democratically elected government and replace it with a petty dictator for the benefit and profit of United Fruit Company...and all just so Americans could have cheap bananas.

 
Last edited:
At first, the northern NFZ was largely a British effort (Operation Haven and Operation to Provide Comfort) because the US didn't want to get more involved.

The Sandinista's were Democrat Socialists and it was Reagans illegally funded, trained and armed Contra mercenary death squads that were trying to over throw a democratically elected government and replace it with a petty dictator for the benefit and profit of United Fruit Company...and all just so Americans could have cheap bananas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbd5CTQCXto

The Sandinistas were still pretty ****ty to be under. And hell; look at what happened to Venezuela. If the Sandinistas had remained in power uninterrupted that's probably what would have happened.

At first is the key phrase in that sentence.
 
...I'll admit, that does sound pretty damning. Do you have a link to back that up, or do I need to sift through news sources on my own to verify all of those parts?

Not sure what you want backed up that I haven't already with the links in post #8.
 
The Sandinistas were still pretty ****ty to be under. And hell; look at what happened to Venezuela. If the Sandinistas had remained in power uninterrupted that's probably what would have happened.

At first is the key phrase in that sentence.

Sandanistas weren't bad until the CIA tried to kill them and overthrow their democratically elected government. Apparently, they weren't keen on 90% of their country owned by the United Fruit Company and being forced into labor camps. So why wouldn't they fight back?

Without US interference, the democrat socialist country of Bolivia is doing just fine. Where just a few short years ago, they were one of the poorest countries....today they have one of the most robust economies in the world.

A new top regional economy has emerged
 
Last edited:
Sandanistas weren't bad until the CIA tried to kill them and overthrow their democratically elected government. Apparently, they weren't keen on 90% of their country owned by the United Fruit Company and being forced into labor camps. So why wouldn't they fight back?

Without US interference, the democrat socialist country of Bolivia is doing just fine. Where just a few short years ago, they were one of the poorest countries....today they have one of the most robust economies in the world.

A new top regional economy has emerged

It's Bolivia. Without a coast they've pretty much been able to stew. And as I recall there hasn't been "US interference" in Venezuela for a long while either and they still fell apart rather spectacularly. Of course, when push came to shove actual Nicaraugua s decided that having the Sandinistas run the country wasn't what they wanted.

Sandinistas were always bad; its like saying the Red Army Faction wasn't bad until the West Germans tried to arrest them.
 
What amazes me is how easily they convinced the public to go to war in a foreign land with a country that never attacked us. The Iraq war had US Imperialism and war profiteering written all over it from the very start. If Obama hadn't been elected we'd probably be at war with Iran, Russia, China, N. Korea and a holy war with all of Islam by now. And the only justification would be..."they hate us for our freedom".

hermann-goering-quote.jpg
 
It's Bolivia. Without a coast they've pretty much been able to stew. And as I recall there hasn't been "US interference" in Venezuela for a long while either and they still fell apart rather spectacularly. Of course, when push came to shove actual Nicaraugua s decided that having the Sandinistas run the country wasn't what they wanted.

Sandinistas were always bad; its like saying the Red Army Faction wasn't bad until the West Germans tried to arrest them.

If you'd do a little reading about the subject you'd find that there wasn't any communist or soviet involvement in central America. It was all just a propaganda smoke screen for the gullible masses...and people like you.
 
That's funny, because that's not what the KGB seemed to think.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Was-Going-Our-Way/dp/0465003133

You can read the whole book on Scribd if your interested.

So where does the book say anything about soviet involvement in central America? I seriously doubt you read that book.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Public_Diplomacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare
 
So where does the book say anything about soviet involvement in central America? I seriously doubt you read that book.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Public_Diplomacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_in_Guerrilla_Warfare

You seriously doubt that? That's funny, especially seeing as the very first region the book talks about is Latin America and KGB efforts there. Which you'd know if you'd read the book.
 
You seriously doubt that? That's funny, especially seeing as the very first region the book talks about is Latin America and KGB efforts there. Which you'd know if you'd read the book.

So what does the book say about the "Office of Public Diplomacy" and the "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" handbook?

Why did congress stop funding for the Contras?
 
So what does the book say about the "Office of Public Diplomacy" and the "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" handbook?

Why did congress stop funding for the Contras?

Why, exactly, would a book about the KGB's operations spend much time talking about the other side? The Contras were mentioned, as were various other US operations throughout the world, but the main focus was on Soviet moves; not quite as much on Western counter moves.
 
Back
Top Bottom