52
Comments (42)
sorted by:
52
Gizortnik 52 points ago +53 / -1 (edited)

“I'm not saying the military’s in love with me, the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs & make the planes & make everything else stay happy”

JESUS FUCK, HE SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD AGAIN

THERE'S VIDEO

26
WorldsBestestFluffer 26 points ago +26 / -0

"Just sayin' what you were all thinking"

33
Gizortnik 33 points ago +34 / -1 (edited)

I like to imagine there is some pissed off Democratic leaning executive at Lockheed Martin just reeee-ing uncontrollably and smashing his phone onto the corner of his desk.

I don't even know. I like that he called them "wonderful companies that make the bombs".

"Look, I think you're great. Absolutely the best. You make the biggest bombs. Great bombs. Big bombs. But I can't just blow up random brown people, okay?"

6
Knife-TotingRat 6 points ago +6 / -0

Cue the PR campaign based on AC/DC's Big Balls.

"I've got big bombs, you've got big bombs ...."

27
lgbtqwtfbbq 27 points ago +27 / -0

that our Betters call us stupid and ignorant for thinking but never seem to have a good answer for when asked. See also: "if it's better to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, why are we bringing them here? Shouldn't we just leave them there so we don't have to fight them over here?"

11
WorldsBestestFluffer 11 points ago +11 / -0

gasp

What's this hitler talk?!

23
Ahaus667 23 points ago +23 / -0

I've seen so many memes with former generals who have spoken out against Trump. It really puts a damper on these retards when you link the current lobby/corporations they're involved in and how they've been losing money due to Trump.

26
lgbtqwtfbbq 26 points ago +26 / -0

I'm still trying to figure out who the press thinks they're pulling over to the Biden side when they advertise the fact that all the neocon orchestrators of Afghanistan and Iraq have abandoned Trump. No shit: why do you think we voted for the guy? Those wars are old enough to vote; even people who supported them initially are tired of them by now.

15
Gizortnik 15 points ago +16 / -1

I love that NYT ad they put out.

"Look at all of these national security state heads and executives who are opposed to Trump!"

"..."

"Also the Deep State is an alt-right conspiracy created by The Proud Boys"

"?!!"

7
WorldsBestestFluffer 7 points ago +7 / -0

Somewhere a boomer shrugs, "We got bored of those wars. We need new ones to be against."

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
Knife-TotingRat 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think the Korean War is over yet, either. It's just been one long-ass ceasefire.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
10
Gizortnik 10 points ago +11 / -1

You know, I lean towards a militarist perspective. But I think part of the problem here is the massive government monopoly on the defense industry. You don't really need wars for this stuff. Take a look at gun manufacturers. They could make money from a massive urban conflict... or they could just sponsor competitive shooting.

I don't actually think a nationalized defense industry is good, it's basically what we have now. If we had a militia system, and allowed the states themselves to arm and war-game, we could have a better system that didn't require perpetual war, and wouldn't be beholden to a single client (namely the federal government).

You don't need to slaughter countries worth of people to make money, there are other ways. We just need to strip the government of it's war-footing and it's subsidization of some of this crazy shit.

10
Ahaus667 10 points ago +11 / -1

Most of this also had to do with the destabilizing of regions to boost economies of our 'partner' countries, protection of the petrodollar, and creating and endless wave of refugees who were magically coached on how to force their way to western countries by NGOs. The need of our military to use every dollar it has in order to maintain their budget is also an insane policy that only breeds bureaucracy and corruption.

6
Gizortnik 6 points ago +8 / -2

Most of this also had to do with the destabilizing of regions to boost economies of our 'partner' countries

And to make them ripe for corporate colonization.

8
stanzololthrowaway 8 points ago +8 / -0

They could make money from a massive urban conflict...

Nah, they really can't. In an actual organized conflict, or hell, even an unorganized one, the first move anyone with any sense would make is to secure any available sources of hardware. Your second move is to secure the things that make the hardware function... ammo, fuel, etc. Logistics win wars, tactics and strategy win battles. The last thing gun manufacturers want is to be taken over by either side, which is what WILL happen if a conflict actually breaks out.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +2 / -1

Well, sure. I'm just saying that the idea is silly.

2
stanzololthrowaway 2 points ago +3 / -1

Reading my comment back, I'm not even really sure what my point was. I guess I was just being pedantic for the fuck of it...

I think maybe my point was that a lot of the destructive shit you could theoretically justify through capitalism just falls apart if you take a longer term view of things.

Carry on.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +2 / -1

Carry on.

Will-co.

1
evilmathmagician 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we had a militia system, and allowed the states themselves to arm and war-game

I'm imagining a world where instead of football being the american pastime, it's having militias compete against one another. I'd watch it if it didn't have announcers. Tailor the competitions to promote skills that are widely beneficial for american militia. Don't give them a damned salary, that shit brings in people who just want money. Possibly don't even name specific men because that'd be a draw for fame-seekers.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +2 / -1

We can argue on the logistics of it, but war-gaming is basically how you continue a marshal society. The reason English longbowmen existed is because the King mandated that children learn how to use longbows and there would be games at festivals for everyone to practice and compete.

Basically you'd have competitive 'muck-runs', 3-gun competitions, and even competitive artillery speed drills and air-force strafing runs.

You'd have to turn Marshall prowess into a profitable sport, and that profitable sport could then be re-mobilized into standard warfare practices if the militia's need to be called up.

It doesn't annihilate the military-industrial complex, it just re-orients it so that it stops being directed at causing wars by pursuing government contracts. You can't destroy the profit motive to end war-profiteering, so you have to turn it into war-game profiteering instead.

1
evilmathmagician 1 point ago +1 / -0

Basically you'd have competitive 'muck-runs', 3-gun competitions, and even competitive artillery speed drills and air-force strafing runs.

These sound pretty simple to do, but I was originally thinking of something like more of a direct skirmish. Thinking about it now, though, that's basically just forcing militias to play paintball, so I'd rather go a more creative route. Like, whatever things an urban militia would need to train for are probably different from a militia whose territory includes a lot of wilderness, so you'd have different types of mock-manhunts or terrorist suppression.

You'd have to turn Marshall prowess into a profitable sport

I think I understand your point about why this would be beneficial, but I'm very wary of things getting corrupted. Taking profit out doesn't make it immune to corruption, of course, but what do you suggest for minimizing the risk of corruption in militias?

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +2 / -1

I was originally thinking of something like more of a direct skirmish. Thinking about it now, though, that's basically just forcing militias to play paintball

I think there have been historical instances of things like that, and they just devolved into actual battles.

Like, whatever things an urban militia would need to train for are probably different from a militia whose territory includes a lot of wilderness, so you'd have different types of mock-manhunts or terrorist suppression.

Right, and that would mean that each state militia could specialize in specific fields and operations.

I think I understand your point about why this would be beneficial, but I'm very wary of things getting corrupted. Taking profit out doesn't make it immune to corruption, of course, but what do you suggest for minimizing the risk of corruption in militias?

The purpose of corruption is to make bypassing a strict regulation easier. Over-stringent bureaucracy and regulation actually promotes corruption. You would basically want a system that incentives profit based on merit. Western militaries, particularly Anglo ones, are all descendant from the English "New Model Army" which explicitly focused on the importance of Meritocracy, at least within the Enlisted ranks. The Federal government, wanting cheap, but highly competent troops, would be the major enforcer of meritocratic focus. They have enormous incentives to maintain meritocracy over corruption. An incompetent, but politically appointed General, incompetently leading his own troops into disaster, is so well ingrained into the average soldier that "fragging" became a thing.

I could talk to you about the long history of political "Modern Major Generals" who are nothing beyond intellectualists & aristocrats that have no purpose on the battlefield going all the way back to Carrahe, but the fact that the enlisted ranks are prepared to execute incompetent officers says probably everything about the meritocratic focus.

So, that takes care of the external pressure to be meritocratic over corrupt. To avoid systemic corruption, the biggest factor is simply: pay. Well paid soldiers, like cops, are corrupt. Personal finance problems is one of the leading causes of corruption. Over-burdensome regulations incentivize the corruption, and poor pay & benefits nearly guarantee it.

What about internal pressures? Well, wealth, prestige, and status as an excellent niche in your particular field is critically important. Again: meritocracy over protectionism and corruption every time, and pretty much everyone is incentivized to want the highest competency in their soldiers.

There may be a threat for corruption with the feds favoring some states over others, but this is why you have to have each state excel at particular things. California might be producing great pilots, but Connecticut isn't. Instead, they need to focus on cyber-warfare.

The overall point here is not to prevent corruption, or even police it. But to use selfishness as a weapon to re-enforce meritocratic institutions.

1
evilmathmagician 1 point ago +1 / -0

The overall point here is not to prevent corruption, or even police it. But to use selfishness as a weapon to re-enforce meritocratic institutions.

I was having a hard time understanding til this part. I'll be thinking about it for a while in the back of my mind, thanks. I basically started slipping into a stance of pushing negative reinforcement when I know only positive reinforcement works.

The purpose of corruption is to make bypassing a strict regulation easier.

I hadn't thought of it like this.

Well paid soldiers, like cops, are corrupt.

Also I assume you meant underpaid instead of well paid here.

... continue reading thread?
1
somercet 1 point ago +1 / -0

You must be kidding.

We could fund the entire arms industry by just making sure our riflemen, artillery and fighter/bomber pilots have enough training (which expends ammo and wears out planes and other vehicles). As it is, they're probably at 60% of recommended training as I type this.

0
Gizortnik 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sure, but that doesn't eliminate the government monopoly which generates a war-profiteering incentive.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

Since the Federal govt has taken it on itself to spend money on everything, including subsidizing Obama's friends, I'm unaware of how they need a military to commit graft.

10
almond_activator 10 points ago +10 / -0

And right on cue, the corporatists shriek because they still haven't figured out that for most of us, that's a feature, not a bug.

11
Gizortnik 11 points ago +12 / -1

"He's leading us all to the end of the world!"

"No, just yours."

2
TisDaRhythmOfDaNight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wait, what?! Please tell me there's a video of him saying this.

1
1
TisDaRhythmOfDaNight 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow, that's quite shocking. I wish he was like this throughout his presidency.

2
somercet 2 points ago +2 / -0

You have not been paying attention.

19
Gizortnik 19 points ago +21 / -2

Some folks really ought to read what President Eisenhower actually said in his farewell address. While they are both critical of the military industrial complex, nowhere does Eisenhower actually accuse military leaders of engaging in shooting wars to boost profits for firms

Who the fuck do you think was fighting the war that the military-industrial complex. The whole system. FFS this is an archaic leftist talking point. The military brass are part of that system you utter fucking retard.

16
Ahaus667 16 points ago +16 / -0

This is how their 'nuance' works, nitpick and create false dichotomies so that the masses will feel vindicated.

14
Lurker404 14 points ago +14 / -0

Now we have the left defending the military industrial complex. Weird times.

If Trump cured cancer they'd start saying cancer is a good thing.

9
Gizortnik 9 points ago +10 / -1

Oh, you mean this one?

God, I hope no one tells them about Smedly Butler

Give 'em hell, General

7
Peraion 7 points ago +7 / -0

Won't anyone please think of the poor Military-Industrial Complex?

6
Petes_Agate_Israel 6 points ago +6 / -0

Well, Trump is the CIC of the US Military and REAL military commanders call people on their bullshit no matter who they are. Any military leadership that is butthurt by this should be put in a dress and fired ......out of a cannon..... into the sun.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +5 / -1

From the tweets:

Now the Military is part of his crazy deep state.

It's like they genuinely forgot their own narrative. My family & I remember you calling us all baby killers serving Capitalism, because of the opportunity to kill brown people. You know that, right?