• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War is a racket

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is an article I found on the web, its a little old (pre-dates WWII), but I think it might hold some relevence...


A snip


The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm



I find this interesting, and I think it shows how much certain people profit from war and how everyone else gets screwed. Government contracts are often huge during wartimes, and I bet during peace time too, among other things.


Its an interesting article..
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Government contracts are too high during peace time also and they slow our progress down in many ways.
 

syzygy

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the article throws around gross simplifications just to make a quick partisan point.

the author doesn't think too deep or look to far to consider the number of small businesses which are adversely affected by war. there is also strain on middle size companies who may need to hire more workers and train them. the impact is greater is local economies or in modest sized states with a low manufacturing percentage. war is far from the boon scatterbrained socialists make it out to be.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
GySgt said:
Government contracts are too high during peace time also and they slow our progress down in many ways.
You nailed that one right. One of my billets was a safety engineer. I've had to sit through the bidding process for large and small base contracts. Way too many man hours are wasted when work could be getting done.
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
GySgt said:
Government contracts are too high during peace time also and they slow our progress down in many ways.
You nailed that one right. One of my billets was a safety engineer. I've had to sit through the bidding process for large and small base contracts. Way too many man hours are wasted when work could be getting done.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The war in Iraq is nothing less than a racket.

Our involvement in world war II came only after we were attacked for our economic sanctions on a country that was, at that point, leaning toward the same Ideology that you (ANAV, Gunnery) are subscribing to now.

Funny how things change.
 

Conflict

Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
745
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
GySgt said:
Government contracts are too high during peace time also and they slow our progress down in many ways.
Is this what you are trying to say?




Sheer stupidity and disregard of the people that fight for your economy...

I support our troops... I hate those who view them as pawns.

Game theory will never work. Not in the big picture.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Conflict said:
Is this what you are trying to say?




Sheer stupidity and disregard of the people that fight for your economy...

I support our troops... I hate those who view them as pawns.

Game theory will never work. Not in the big picture.


........no.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by Conflict:
The war in Iraq is nothing less than a racket.

Our involvement in world war II came only after we were attacked for our economic sanctions on a country that was, at that point, leaning toward the same Ideology that you (ANAV, Gunnery) are subscribing to now.

Funny how things change.
This is interesting...

US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer
Richard Norton-Taylor and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Thursday January 12, 2006 The Guardian


A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by British commanders of American military tactics.

What is startling is the severity of his comments - and the decision by Military Review, a US army magazine, to publish them.

American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism".

The US army, he says, is imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion and talent. "Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."

While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind".

He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1684561,00.html
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
This is interesting...
What's more interesting....

"criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations"

"at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism"

"the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare"

"He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency."




.....is that the Marine Corps has been criticizing this sort of thing for years.....and not just since or about Iraq.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
.....is that the Marine Corps has been criticizing this sort of thing for years.....and not just since or about Iraq.
Are you saying this is the Army's problem?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Are you saying this is the Army's problem?

I'm saying that there is a reason that the aggressive branch always has much less casualties than the less aggressive. (Makes no sense when you think about it.)

I'm saying that there is a reason that most casualties belong to one branch, despite the fact the Al-Anbar Province (most violent) belongs to the Marine Corps.

I'm saying that there is a reason that ambushes have historically been a problem for one branch while not for another.

I'm saying there is a reason one branch is always complaining about their lack of equipment or the state of it, yet receives much more funding than another.

I'm saying there is a reason the Marine Corps is known as the "Varsity" and another branch is known as the "Junior Varsity."

I'm saying there is a reason nearly all controversies belong to one branch.

And finally, I'm saying that there is a reason that a leader of an international military singles out the "U.S. Army" when expressing his concerns. Trust me....the international military community (as well as our enemies) knows the difference between the Army and the Marines. "U.S. Army" was not used as a generic term.

None of these problems are exclusive to just Iraq. This is not a "soldier" problem as much as it is an institutional one. Without getting into some huge branch bashing rivalry with someone.....I don't know how else to say it.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
I'm saying that there is a reason that the aggressive branch always has much less casualties than the less aggressive. (Makes no sense when you think about it.)

I'm saying that there is a reason that most casualties belong to one branch, despite the fact the Al-Anbar Province (most violent) belongs to the Marine Corps.

I'm saying that there is a reason that ambushes have historically been a problem for one branch while not for another.

I'm saying there is a reason one branch is always complaining about their lack of equipment or the state of it, yet receives much more funding than another.

I'm saying there is a reason the Marine Corps is known as the "Varsity" and another branch is known as the "Junior Varsity."

I'm saying there is a reason nearly all controversies belong to one branch.

And finally, I'm saying that there is a reason that a leader of an international military singles out the "U.S. Army" when expressing his concerns. Trust me....the international military community (as well as our enemies) knows the difference between the Army and the Marines. "U.S. Army" was not used as a generic term.

None of these problems are exclusive to just Iraq. This is not a "soldier" problem as much as it is an institutional one. Without getting into some huge branch bashing rivalry with someone.....I don't know how else to say it.
In that case, I say this with all sincerity, Semper fi!

What does that mean, anyway?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
In that case, I say this with all sincerity, Semper fi!

What does that mean, anyway?

It's Latin meaning "Always Faithful." This motto isn't just in regards to our Corps. This means to each other and to country. It's a statement to all that hear it that "no matter what, you can count on me."

...so for all you liberal wackos and left winged nuts.....Semper Fi.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by GySgt:
It's Latin meaning "Always Faithful." This motto isn't just in regards to our Corps. This means to each other and to country. It's a statement to all that hear it that "no matter what, you can count on me."

...so for all you liberal wackos and left winged nuts.....Semper Fi.
And my your barber have a steady hand during your next 'high and tight'.
 
Top Bottom