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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
"?!!"
Somewhere a boomer shrugs, "We got bored of those wars. We need new ones to be against."
I don't think the Korean War is over yet, either. It's just been one long-ass ceasefire.
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.
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.
And to make them ripe for corporate colonization.
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.
Well, sure. I'm just saying that the idea is silly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Sure, but that doesn't eliminate the government monopoly which generates a war-profiteering incentive.
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.