Discussion for article #223264
"The true strength of the United States comes from the principles that our men and women in uniform have died to uphold. "
Take it away, Smedly Butler!:
WAR is a racket. It always has been
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the self same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
Thanks. The caption with pic was too much for me - didn’t know where to start. Another day.
BTW, seriously thinking of becoming a Prime Slimer
(only kidding).
Being an Elitist though, that’s the way to go.
1 Like
True dat, Mr. President. So where’s the example? Whistleblower protection? Secure e-mail? Freedom of information? Freedom of investigative journalism? Accountability for those who undermine these things?
1 Like
I need to see more detail on #2: Enhance counter-terrorism efforts through a robust partnership with nations where violent extremism is seeking a foothold;
It seems to me that our “robust partnerships” with the Egyptian and Saudi governments, for instance, are exactly what produced this terrorism problem in the first place.
It’s a sound, smart idea, but it’s going to be counterproductive unless it’s tempered by close attention to the human rights goals of #4.
Is any of this supposes to have to do with foreign policy?
Or are you treating this as an open thread to talk about what you’re thinking about instead?