by d 28 Replies latest social current
Frazzled UBM
| Egypt is a good example of what happens when you topple an established regime in the Arab world. |
... and just think of the dazzling success of US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, then there is Libya (which is sort of the model for intervention in Syria) - its sliding into a Somalia - like chaos.
What do you guys in the USA feed your pollies on? Psychodelic stuff of some kind?
War is good for the American economy. The USA has the biggest arms industry in the world. And some have described the US economy as "militarised socialism." If a local area isn't doing well - just put an army post there, or an armaments factory.
You have a warped view of a successful 'economy'. Does huge military spending ever do anyone any good? I can point to the countries that bankrupt themselves and cause hardship by spending on arms (Russia, North Korea) and the countries that did much better by spending much less (Japan, Canada etc...)
Yes, lots of money changes hands and some people get incredibly rich but it does NOT help the economy and is frequently a shady are where billions go missing. Stop regurgitating the propaganda you've been fed.
I really should find out who is getting most of the oil exports from Iraq, but I have the impression that most of it is going to China.
About 13% goes to China.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=IZ
The big question is where would Iraq's oil have been going if the UN lifted sanctions on Iraq exports and the US never invaded in 2003? Admittedly I don't exactly know how that would have played out, but I suspect Saddam would have been a little less friendly to the economic interests of the US than the current Iraqi government.
War is good for the American economy.
I have to disagree. You could say that war is extremely financially beneficial for certain industries, but who gets stuck footing the bill? The American taxpayer gets stuck holding the bag while war profiteers laugh all the way to the bank.
Sorry guys, I think you are both wrong in your assertion. You are viewing my original statement (assertion) from a perspective that seems to be saying, that in your ideal economy, much less money would be (maybe you’d use the word wasted here) spent on the military.
But ideals are one thing, reality is something else.
So try this definition of an economy. The Oxford Dictionary defines an economy as (first):
the state of a country or region in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services and the supply of money:
Using that basic definition, is or is not military spending a significant factor in the economy of the USA?
Here’s a report in the NY Times in 2012:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market
By THOM SHANKER
Published: August 26, 2012
WASHINGTON — Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.
Multimedia
Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.
The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.
A worldwide economic decline had suppressed arms sales over recent years. But increasing tensions with Iran drove a set of Persian Gulf nations** — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman — to purchase American weapons at record levels.
End quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we attempt to define an ‘economy, at a more complex level (and modern economies are extremely complex), we finish up with something like this (from Wikipedia):
An economy is the total sum of product and service transactions of value between two agents in a region, be it individuals, organizations or states. An economy consists of the economic system, comprising the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services between two agents, the agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Transactions only occur when both parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good, commonly expressed in a certain currency.
In the past, economic activity was theorized to be bounded by natural resources, labor, and capital. This view ignores the value of technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions), and creativity (new products, services, processes, new markets, expands markets, diversification of markets, niche markets, increases revenue functions), especially that which produces intellectual property.
A given economy is the result of a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure and legal systems, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. Some cultures create more productive economies and function better than others, creating higher value, or GDP.
End quote
Don’t you consider it significant that the three largest defense companies in the world are all American companies? They have a combined total revenue (in 2001) of $100 billion and employed 400,000 people. Who are they? They are Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing , all of them powerhouses of American business. Their combined revenues accounted for 1% of the United States' $10 trillion GDP in 2001. These companies crossfeed income and technology into other US companies and originate much of the technological development that drives modern economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it then that “war” is not good for America?
Imagine the state of the US economy if all forms of military spending stopped tomorrow?
Please note also' my other (actually a quote from elsewhere) assertion: … some have described the US economy as "militarised socialism.’’ If in this case ‘socialism’ is defined as state control and spending (a common view in the USA, it seems) then indeed, since government spending finances the military and the arms industry, the USA is a “socialist” state. (A little tongue in cheek on my part)
And please note, that I have managed to say all this without resorting to accusing anyone of “regurgitating propaganda.” All of us form our ideas from sources already in existence, whether its willingly on our part or whether its force-fed.
If you wished to argue that this money would be better spent on something that truly benefited the nation and its people, I would absolutely agree with you. But if we are merely discussing my assertion that “war is good for the American economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**As an aside, its rather interesting that the best customers of the USA military spending are ‘undemocratic’ Arab States , that are said to be driving the attempts to overthrow regimes unfriendly to the USA, including Syria. They are also oil-rich states that can spend big on local welfare and infrastructure. So whether their form of a better life can be duplicated in nations without such oil wealth (like Egypt) remains to be seen.
Resistance is futile:
| The big question is where would Iraq's oil have been going if the UN lifted sanctions on Iraq exports and the US never invaded in 2003? Admittedly I don't exactly know how that would have played out, but I suspect Saddam would have been a little less friendly to the economic interests of the US than the current Iraqi government. |
Probably so, but we should never forget that Saddam Hussein started life as 'plant' of the American state.
He was fed, paid, encouraged etc, etc, by the various US agencies that are empowered to do things like that.
If you do not believe my assertion, then go research the history of his involvement with US agencies. And, while you're at it, take a look at the history of Iraq post WW1. Note how Iraq (because of its oil) become British controlled (ostensibly to 'grown' it into a modern state) You may also note that it was in Iraq that defenceless civilians first became the target of bombing raids by an airforce, (British, of course).
Senator Bernie Sanders made the point that this decision is difficult but the cost will be born by the poor as Republicans will seek to get the money for this military action by cutting School food programs, Seniors food programs, and the other social services the poor need.
It makes very hopeful (perversely). Here's why:
The US is little more than a jobless, rogue police state these days. This astonishingly wrong headed effort to start a war might lead to radical reform.
The US military is being pushed around and often treated with contempt after massive failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and what happened in Libya (a disaster for the innocent people who live there). They are exhausted after years of useless conflict.
The US government is treating ordinary Americans as potential enemies while trying to act as allies of Al-Qaida. Some might view this as treason.
The US is being led into war by the Saudis, the Israelis, the Qataris and the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned about. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Japanese are dumping US Treasury bonds by the billions (Seeking Alpha site).
There is a rumor that the Pentagon may have impeachable evidence that Obama and the CIA gave weapons to Al-qaida groups in Libya and Syria.
The elites are stuck with Obama and his ineptitude.
So, the whole thing could collapse. I am very hopeful about a possibility happening that I don't want to articulate explicitly.....
Obama could end up rather like Hirohito did after WW2 in Japan - an outright criminal but useful as a figurehead. Just load his teleprompter.
I have speculated that 2013 would get crazier and crazier. So far, that continues to be my opinion. And it's gonna get even weirder.
metatron
metatron- How can a wannabe Al Qaida group be distinguished from a real Al Qaida group.
Syria will never turn into another Vietnam because Obama knows of the cost in human lives and money.
Expect something similar to how the US and Allies helped overthrough Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
The initiative is not to make a direct full forced military (Iraq) intervention but a helping assistance to rebels trying to oust Assad.
The overthrow of Khaddafi was a disaster for the people of Libya. Oil production plunged to a fraction of what it used to be while jihadist gangs run free.
The Syrian rebels are largely butchers - often far worse than Assad as they commit mass atrocities in Christian/ Shia/Alawite villages.
There's a desperate element of time here. Israel knows it must get the US to go to war with Iran and it must happen soon because they are headed for a political disaster similar to apartheid in which they will be forced to accept Palestinians as full citizens.
The Saudis need war because their oil fields are headed for depletion and they hate Shias.
metatron
