"America is a war economy" - the ultimate Pandora's box?

"America is a war economy"

Not a new concept. But here's what jumped out at me when I read this gripping post from Hastobemoretolife:

That's IT.

Not just a 'good earner' for the corporations, their government cronies and the whole industrial-military complex.

It's the whole driving force of American policy, past and present. The very raison d'etre. Not a boost to the economy. The goal of the economy.

Work, production, tax - all driving one thing forward: militarism.

"Wo! Slow down," is the natural reaction of anyone who knows the US has stood for and fought for the moral high ground of freedom and democracy. And I have always regarded such aims as intrinsically well-meaning and potentially liberating, ensuring the US is a force for good in the world. I do not question the self-sacrificial sincerity of man and women who have risked and given their lives in the service of these aims. You only have to look at the Second World War to see how the US gave everything to help destroy tyranny.

But what if the long-term movers and shakers who made mega bucks and gained power and influence via even that conflict - while the main, visible policy makers were acting in good faith for the good of mankind - have gradually taken the reigns of industrial and then political power?

Could it be that war and it's creation has become the overarching aim of the entire system? Could it be that a nation whose founding principles are the most laudable on the planet has been manipulated to become a force for never-ending devastation?

This is not a Rockefeller/NWO thread. It's down-to-earth, logical politico-economic analysis alone. The question of who is tangental to why.

I ask, because the response to the the above post sent shivers up my spine:

Originally quoted by GreenBicMan
in response to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

America is a War economy, ever notice how since WWII we have had the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, we had intervention in Somalia, Bosnia, now we are in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I don't disagree with that.

...We cannot support the IRAQ war yes.. that is ending. We do though have the biggest corporations in the world still in the USA and we wield the heaviest hand.

Our assets if I am not mistaken still exponentially dominate any other country.

GBM's argument is logical, and well written. I starred it without hesitation.

GBM was arguing the US economy can survive. But "We do have the biggest corporations" opened a frightening scenario to me, a spine-chilling opening of Pandora's box:

Our corporations will survive to feed yet more wars.

The means to an end - or the end in itself?!

reply to post by pause4thought


Hello old friend, perhaps I can share my insight on this:

War in and of it's self is not an abnormal thing for a Nation, any Nation. In fact, as some more philosophical men might say, it is time between wars, not peace.

for all intents and purposes we could assume that the US is a War economy to some extent.. however the true value of war, aside from the debts it produces, lies in the amount manufactured. Ironically, the smarter, more expensive and complex our devices of destruction become, the less it effects the economy as a whole. Having Ford plants crank out bombers, tanks and artillery is one thing, placing an order for a dozen laser guided missiles is another. Granted, on defense, we spend an exorbitant amount of money --- to much money actually.

It also takes a certain kind of war to produce a War Time Economy .. wars where thousands of Americans die for instance, as it typically culls the population of the least desirable men. It also demands more uniforms, guns, ammo, planes, bombs, transport, food etc etc etc. The more that die, the longer it last and the more severe the fighting the better. In 2003 we saw just enough military spending and production to boost the economy slightly, but all in all the money was wasted over seas, and on a few select companies that didn't really "produce" anything at all... in fact, it would have been the only war time economy where we would have slipped into a full blown DEPRESSION where it not for the drastically cheap credit that was expanded beyond comprehension.

In fact

Take away that credit expansion from 2001-2009 and we never would have got out of the 2000 recession to begin with. Since 2000 we have lost a considerable amount of manufacturing, our greatest technological advances have been in the service and health industries, and more and more skilled labor and intellectual positions where shipped overseas.

So, in short. No, we are not a War Time Economy, by any means. And without some form of wealth creation, the expansion of debt and credit to fund military opperations for extended periods of time WILL bankrupt the country. Don't believe it?

Ask these guys:

France
Britain
Spain
Germany
Italy
USSR

All had empires before us. All fell. How are we American's any different then our ancestors?


[edit on 6/20/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Rockpuck


Hi. And thank you for your thoughtful reply.

No, we are not a War Time Economy...

My argument is not that the US is a war-time economy. Is the overarching purpose of growth, growth, growth to sustain the potential for military intervention, though? It's not far-fetched is it? And the degree to which this is a fair assessment relates to the whole question of 'What is the role of the US in the world?'

Your reference to empires is very perceptive. I suppose the phrase that brings the concept up to date is 'US hegemony', which is unfortunately often tainted with anti-US rhetoric. But I'm not trying to be partisan here, just get to the bottom of what it is that requires the US to have an economy that is so focussed on investment in the military.

I agree every empire wanes and fades. Could it be that there are those who believe the only way to beat the force of history is to endlessly pulverize other nations as the opportunity presents itself? Or that such opportunities need to be created?

War in and of it's self is not an abnormal thing for a Nation, any Nation. In fact, as some more philosophical men might say, it is time between wars, not peace.

That is an incredibly perceptive comment. And food for thought. Bleak, but hard to deny.

In 2003 we saw just enough military spending and production to boost the economy slightly, but all in all the money was wasted over seas, and on a few select companies that didn't really "produce" anything at all... in fact, it would have been the only war time economy where we would have slipped into a full blown DEPRESSION where it not for the drastically cheap credit that was expanded beyond comprehension...

...without some form of wealth creation, the expansion of debt and credit to fund military opperations for extended periods of time WILL bankrupt the country.

So have the bigwig schemers reached an impasse? Reached the end of their intellectual capacity to perpetuate their intentions? That actually sounds quite hopeful.

Except Hitler came to power under just such circumstances.

Check. But not check-mate?

Hey guys.

What I was trying to get at was that all the war we have waged has allowed debt to increase to exponential numbers.

War really isn't good for the economy either way you look at it. Every time we come out of a war we go through a recession, because off the debt that we have racked up. If you are like a normal sane person then you know debt is bad anyway you look at it. It's too fragile of a monetary instrument to actually sustain long term growth.

It is nothing new that since the Great Depression we have spent our way out of recessions, the Fed hasn't ever allowed the market to truly correct it self properly. Instead we have just papered it over and hope it went away, which it has done. Take the stagflation under Carter, Ragean came in and spent enormous amounts of money lowered taxes and got things moving again.

Then what happen, the S&L crisis. Solution paper it over, then we had a recession in 91, solution invade Iraq. After we helped Saddam defeat Iran in the Iran contra affair, notice how the conflict happened right around the S&L crisis. Then something crazy happen, the digital age woke up and then we had 8 years where there was plenty of money. Then the dot-com bust, we lost a few trillion in "wealth" when that busted.

Bush takes office right when a major recession is getting started. What does he do cut taxes back down and papers over it. Then 9/11 happen, we then invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq in 2003, then what happen to the DJIA it shot up to 1400+ points.

It seems when ever we go to war the main variable that is always there is cheap credit. After all you don't want expensive credit to go to war because then war costs to much money and could possibly bankrupt us.

Now take into account of making this cheap credit available to people that don't have jobs and no fiscal responsibility. This artificially raises prices and makes things worth more than they are. Now we all know what happens when there is too much of something in the market place. It causes the value of it to shrink. Then add in uncontrolled government spending, having a consumer based society, etc.

The sub-prime collapse was a symptom of too much cheap credit. There is way too much debt in the system to be sustainable. War has been an instrument used to flood the market with cheap credit. Then with a loose monetary policy during a recession to paper over the recession, the value has to decrease.

War has been thought of a way to boost economy, when in reality after every war there is a recession that follows it, because once again, too much debt exists. Now we have major problems instead of letting the market correct it self we have papered over the problems time and time again.

Seeing how our monetary system is fiat based, our money is actually worthless. Like it has no value, there is too many 1's and 0's sitting in computer systems for us to have anyway of paying it back.

History tells us that fiat money always fails, the real reason why is because the money becomes worthless, because market forces will always prevail and cause the money to devalue because too much of it exist.

When you put it all together we have always used military conflicts to bring us out of debt deflation, then we have just papered over the following recession. Eventually it is going to catch up and that is what is happening now.

People have grown tired of us throwing our weight around, China is becoming an economic powerhouse, and now has no need for us to stick around. Which means no more creditor to continue our funding our spending. Combine that with entitlement spending and our debt obligation is 100 trillion plus. That is just the government.

Now we have the CDS market, the banks have no intentions of selling the property they own, why would they want too, they saw this coming long ago, why would they want to get rid of assets that actually have value? It might not have the value of what it was worth when the bought it, but after we get through this mess it will still have value, not to mention what is sitting under the land that they own.

When you put it all together you find out we have been papering over a true market correction for decades, now there is no bubble left to inflate, and noway to paper over it again. Because there is simply nothing worth what it would cost to paper over it.

Now the problem is with the worlds economy all being based on fiat money, the crash of the dollar is going to effect the worlds economy. Because they are in the same boat as us, as in too much debt. That is why China is buying up mines, because there is no safe currency, the whole scheme is going to come crashing down.

So there is only one choice now, you have to let it happen, but don't forget to loot the treasury on the way out. Then turn that money into hard assets.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


And that debt is owed to the military industrial complex...just because the people of America are in debt doesn't mean the bankers and military manufacturers dont get some nice profits when it comes to warfare.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

War really isn't good for the economy either way you look at it. Every time we come out of a war we go through a recession, because off the debt that we have racked up. If you are like a normal sane person then you know debt is bad anyway you look at it. It's too fragile of a monetary instrument to actually sustain long term growth.

reply to post by pause4thought

So have the bigwig schemers reached an impasse? Reached the end of their intellectual capacity to perpetuate their intentions? That actually sounds quite hopeful. Except Hitler came to power under just such circumstances. Check. But not check-mate?

This is in reply to both of your comments:

You are both incorrect in a basic assumption, that the Economy and the Government are both tied as the same entity. If not that, then that the fate of both are intertwined...

The US government goes to war, it demands produce from the entire nation, it fuels the war machine on the assembly lines, and also in the debts. This is very, very good for the economy.. it demand for production.

It's very very bad for the government, which eventually will spend it's self into bankruptcy.. like all empires do.

But lets take one bank for instance, Royal Bank of Scotland.. founded in 1727.. it has obviously seen many governments and power changes, but (until recently) it is the same entity.

When we trace back many corporations, though names change, sometimes their direction has changed, they are all descendants from corporations that endured the changing of government.

If America collapses, the economy tanks.. a new economy starts immediately, it fills the void, and not all of it disappears.. regardless of which government replaces as overseer of the economy.

There has never been a time where there was no economy to think of. There has been many times when there has been no government, or a void of clear governing power..

Governments, from the date of their inception are dieing.

reply to post by Solomons


Well that is the nature of debt somebody has to loan it to you so that money is always owed.

The Military Industrial Complex, owns land lots and lots of land and the technology and resources to continue innovating new ways to kill people.

It isn't about the money, it is about the power. If you have the power the control of the money is just a nice perk.

Our whole economy is just a sub-prime loan, the Fed/Gov only pays the interest needed for each year.

It has nothing to do with money it has everything to do with power. That is the big picture. Not money, but power.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yes you are correct, but the problem is that if the government fails then we end up in complete and total anarchy, and a vacuum of power because law and order have broken down.

They might not be the same thing, but they both adversely effect each other. Sometimes they go hand and hand, aka socialism, communism, fascism.

So yes, the corporations will survive if they put all the money that they looted from the treasury into the right places, but the government will break down and then all hell will break loose.

Then naturally when a new government comes to power, the corporations will be nationalized or completely taken over or left to be, unless a new government comes to power that actually works for the people and forces the corporations to dissolve.

So no the government and economy are not the same thing, but they both require each other to remain viable. or eventually the economy aka business ends up being the government it self, which is even beyond fascism.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
...wars where thousands of Americans die for instance, as it typically culls the population of the least desirable men.

Could you explain this? I'm not sure in what way they are the 'least desirable' since they are generally able-bodied, mentally stable, generally lacking in excessive anti-social behavior and willing to do something they perceive as being for the greater good; a concept which is easily modified with the same psychology used to generate sentiment for war.

Or is that the point?

There is in fact a 'War Economy' based in the United States. Not a national economy, but scale is irrelevant to the term 'economy'. Rather a corporate structure which has one goal in mind. Will it bankrupt the nation? No doubt. And so the ultimate goal is reached.

That goal is destabilization, not war in and of itself. Destabilization limits whole growth, creates dependence, promotes 'favors' and opens up sources of revenue not for weapons advancement but for basic necessities of food and water and shelter. Basic human needs. And destabilization of the United States is the ultimate goal.

We live in a world where personal gratification is an aim, often sought in money and property. How do those who already posses more money and property than most on the planet satisfy their need for gratification? Do they simply stop desiring? No. Like any junkie, they seek out a better, bigger high. Domination is their aim.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

Yes you are correct, but the problem is that if the government fails then we end up in complete and total anarchy, and a vacuum of power because law and order have broken down.

True, but isn't that also considered opportunity?

They do go hand in hand, the economy and the Government, but the relationship is more to do with stability and regulation.. take away stability and regulation and we won't have the same type of economy, but the economy doesn't disappear either. Personally, if the gov collapses I will be the first to wave good bye to the fast food joints, chain stores and other needless entities.. But you can bet the biggest strongest corporations will stock around.

Also, just because the Gov collapses does not = anarchy and civil war.. it could happen, perhaps, it's possible but not probable. In all likelihood the easiest way to secure the people is to collapse the government.. we then come running arms outstretched waiting for the hand that feeds us to deposit some sense of security. I love Americans, I like to say I have faith they will do what right. But being a logical thinker and a devoted Realist I understand in all actuality that probably won't be the case.

Like Pauseforthought said about Hitler.. the situations are scary when related.. we have the economic problems of epic proportions, we have the desire in the government for more control, we have the complacency, we have the appeasements by the populace. Sacrifice rights for security. We even have the charismatic leader who came from the mists and took us by storm.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


Typically in times of massive war the people who are sent off are young, typically not in college, typically poor, typically with no family to small family, typically male.

Sadly, that's the largest and most expendable portion of the population. Especially white men from 18-25 .. there are plenty of us to go around, kill a few thousand off and it's no big deal. Think of it like... cutting the dead from a plant, the plants growth is refocused and the plant remains healthy, the dead is cast aside.

Not a pleasant thought, but a realistic thought.

[edit on 6/20/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


That was a post worthy of any forum. In fact till the second to last line...

...the whole scheme is going to come crashing down.

So there is only one choice now, you have to let it happen, but don't forget to loot the treasury on the way out.

...I thought you might be Ron Paul.

War really isn't good for the economy either way you look at it.

Perhaps we need to turn that debate on its head: is a debt-based economy good for war?

It's a chicken and egg conundrum: is the aim wealth, or domination? If the former, there are many arguments it's a benevolent system - increased standard of living, better health and life expectancy, surpluses that can be reinvested to provide employment and social programs, etc. But if the latter, whether it is benevolent becomes very debatable. The only way to convince people it is would be to endlessly bombard the masses with propaganda about how it's necessary to use military force to propagate some universal good, like freedom and democracy. But hang on, that sounds familiar...

And as it happens I came across the following ominous thread since my last post above:

U.S. Beats War Drum as Iran dumps the Dollar

Excerpt:

The only way US has left is war. it is not the consumption market anymore, it is not a producer anymore, it is not an investor anymore (and I am last to be happy about it) - but it is still a military power.

What's bugging me is could the above seemingly catastrophic situation actually be what was intended? Has the main focus of become the militarization of the US by the back door - beefing up the military at all costs, even if it means perpetuating regional conflicts to justify massive investment while the rest of the economy goes down?

You would have thought during economic turmoil a sane government acting in good faith would reign in overseas intervention and invest more of its budget (*relatively speaking) in domestic projects such as civil infrastructure, providing jobs in construction, etc., along with funding for technological research and development - all with the goal of building a better future for the citizens.

But if anything, the balance is tipping the other way!

(*I say relatively, as I don't believe that a massive outright increase in borrowing is wise, as it just creates the seeds for the next bursting of the bubble.)



PS - A direct question in response to one of your main points:

It seems when ever we go to war the main variable that is always there is cheap credit. After all you don't want expensive credit to go to war because then war costs to much money and could possibly bankrupt us.

Are you talking about the interest rate set for borrowing from within the country, and if so do you mean the credit created for war is just fiat currency? I thought most of the money ultimately came from increasing national debt, in which case how does the government create 'cheap credit'?



[edit to add initial quote]



[edit on 20/6/09 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Typically in times of massive war the people who are sent off are young, typically not in college, typically poor, typically with no family to small family, typically male.

No question about it. And so they are the 'least desirable' to the segment of the population we're talking about. Those with the most to gain, the greatest will to fight and posing the greatest potential threat. Occupy them, destroy their minds if not their bodies and eliminate that threat.

I like your analogy, but I would amend it slightly since pruning often requires cutting away live, healthy growth that lies low on the stalk to promote more energy upward and outward. Very fitting indeed.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yes, in fact it is a well welcomed opportunity if everybody is on the same page, which like you, know that isn't the case we have a small segment of the population that wants a nanny state.

I, like you, would also like to think my fellow Americans would see the collapse of this government as a well deserved lesson of what happens when government grow to big and become intrusive. But again like you I know that it isn't the case.

And on your last point that is exactly what I'm afraid of. The good thing is though Hitler had what was it 98% of the vote or something crazy like that, our current guy only got 53% with 7% of people that vote every election skipping this one.

I think what is going on is going to be studied in history for centuries to come.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

The good thing is though Hitler had what was it 98% of the vote or something crazy like that...

That's a very common misconception:

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.

Source

(Read on to see how they used a false flag burning of the German parliament to bring about their aims...)

reply to post by pause4thought


Thanks, thank Red Hatty, I got that quote from her.

Yes, low interest rates. Even though the money for war comes from deficit spending, in order to make the market not correct severely the Fed turns to a loose monetary policy, and cheap credit ends up entering the system so people can consume.

Which it's kind of a conundrum when you think about it. Because 95% of the technology we have is a direct cause from war. War is good for the economy until the war ends and then the market has to correct.

So I guess really the correct thought would be, war would be good for the economy on a short turn basis, but long term not so much because you have to deal with the problems after war spending is done and over having to care for wounded vets and other health related problems and other expenses related to the after effects of war.

I have come to the reality that we as a human race are a warrior culture. Nothing is going to change that. As I stated early most innovations come as a direct result of war. You know when people are trying to blow you up it kind of makes people do their best work really fast.

Perhaps we need to turn that debate on its head: is a debt-based economy good for war?

Now that is interesting, when you put it that way. I would say it is the only way modern war can be waged. Now if we go back to the iron age then it wouldn't matter.

Modern war requires silicone for the electronics, glass for the lenses, metals for tanks, planes, etc. all of which have an inherent cost to produce. It all carries a high price tag. If we were to stick to a non fiat currency then we wouldn't be able to wage war for very long.

Honestly, even us being "awake" so to speak, are still brainwashed and in turn hinders our ability to think out of the box to find new viable solutions to old problems. Because of the conditioning that we have already be subjected too. We know that fiat monetary policy allows us to expand fast, as where a precious metals monetary policy is good for keeping wealth generation equal but doesn't lend it self well to war.

I thought of a hybrid fiat/precious metals based currency. In that you would have the initial dollar created that would be based in gold or platinum, or something, then you could leverage out off of that initial dollar in gold or silver or copper. So the money is always worth something and lends it self to defense aka war, but not long term sustained war.

Call me cold hearted, but honestly when we go to war we need to leave the country in ruins, the nation building is what is killing us. If a country wants to harm us then we should solve the problem by having them to reconstruct the country, after a few generations pass the bad sentiments will be gone, because we would be bigger stronger and more powerful, but with that course of action we would have to be allies with none, but trade with all.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Hey guys...

After reading through the entire post. I can't help but think that we should really start with a new definition of the word or phrase "War" The US hasn't really fought any wars since WWII. The Closes we have come to war since WWII was Korea and Gulf War-1. Vietnam and the present situations should really be defined as low level conflicts. Kennedy understood the difference between the two.

The industrial military complex functions and exists for war, obviously there is money to made but by a select few. The definition for war should be "Total War" As bad as the situation is in Iraq and Afghanistan as far as collateral civilian losses go they are a drop in the bucket when we look back at Dresden, London during the blitz, Moscow and Stalingrad. We wont see those types of conflict anymore. The days of the thousand bomber raids are gone.

The US economy has only really been on a war footing twice in it's history once during the civil war and then again during WWII. Even NAZI Germany's economy was not fully engaged in a war footing until 1944 well into WWII. I know some find that hard to believe but Hitler knew he could loose support of the people very quickly and would have been removed from power by the very same prosses that brought him into power. He tried to play the "Bombs and Butter" scheme well into WWII. Some believe for too long and German industry was screaming trying to get war production up to meet the demand and was too late.

The US economy has a strong reliance on the defense industry but it is no longer a large enough back bone to support the economy as a whole. There needs to be a shift in our thinking and go back to the basics. What would really help the US is a releasing of the more exotic technologies at a quicker pace into the market place. If the US Military is supposed to keep the US safe and strong then by squirreling away the more exotic advanced technology it's actually counter productive in regards to the real strength of the US by denying it to free market industry for the production of more advanced consumer products.

Meanwhile a young college student in Tokyo, Bangladesh, or Beijing will come up with the very same invention and then it will flood the market place as the latest and greatest "Must have" Gadget. Post WWII the US economy grew and there was money for the military because of that. Now everything is out of whack. We are still spending more and more on defense but the economy is not there to support such spending and TPTB think wrongly in my opinion that defense spending in and of itself will help the economy.

Get the economy going and maintain a very strong cutting edge industrial base and the economy would grow only then would there be plenty of money at that point for defense spending not the other way around.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Sorry to break the flow with that little correction. It almost felt rude, as I've been enthralled by the main thrust of the discussion, including your posts.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by pause4thought

 

Perhaps we need to turn that debate on its head: is a debt-based economy good for war?

Now that is interesting, when you put it that way. I would say it is the only way modern war can be waged.

PRECICELY!

This lends real credence to my opening hypothesis:

"America is a war economy"

...That's IT.

Not just a 'good earner' for the corporations, their government cronies and the whole industrial-military complex.

It's the whole driving force of American policy, past and present. The very raison d'etre. Not a boost to the economy. The goal of the economy.

Work, production, tax - all driving one thing forward: militarism.

You're scaring me now, Hastobe.

I think what is going on is going to be studied in history for centuries to come.

Let's get to grips with it now. (A lot will be lost between now & then.)

I have come to the reality that we as a human race are a warrior culture. Nothing is going to change that. As I stated early most innovations come as a direct result of war. You know when people are trying to blow you up it kind of makes people do their best work really fast.

I see the logic. But I can't help thinking that's exactly the perspective that can be used to make war a priority.

Though there is a cold logic to where this is taking us, the reality of conflict is obviously far from abstract.

War = cruel mutilation, trauma and suffering

Is this the reality of what a modern economy, epitomized by the US (with its Constitution and Bill of Rights!) actually advances?

There seems to be a fundamental conflict somewhere in there.

Maybe that's why they are being eroded. Maybe its an effort to advance from a primitive 'warrior culture' to something more advanced, like a 'get-in-line or be nuked' culture.

It looks like there's some kind of a choice needs to be made somewhere along the line: freedoms or wars? Looks like the course has already been set: a military-based economy at home, vassal states abroad.

Yes, it does sound disturbingly inhumane. But the more this conversation progresses, the more it looks that way.



Ah, just about to post this & I see Slayer69 has come in with a very lucid new angle. My initial response to one of the points (-it'll take time to think through the whole post-) is that Slayer's recognition that it is low-level conflicts that have driven the IMC over recent decades arguably corresponds to Hastobe's astute observation that:

I guess really the correct thought would be, war would be good for the economy on a short turn basis, but long term not so much

In other words, joining the dots - the IMC would promote so-called low-level conflicts to achieve its aims. That does seem to correspond with history.

More meat on the bones.

The theory still holds.

Maybe that's why they are being eroded. Maybe its an effort to advance from a primitive 'warrior culture' to something more advanced, like a 'get-in-line or be nuked' culture.

Now we are getting to the crux of the issues at hand. Think about the non conventional wars that the US is waging, as in policies that are branded with the war in them, the War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, etc.

I think there is a deep psychological meaning of the term War, which allows the power hungry to manipulate and pull on our heart strings, in order to push an agenda that as it progresses allows them to erode the bill of rights because our "safety" is more important.

So they pick an issue, say, to remain compliant with ATS T&C, the war on poverty. They use our standing as the most powerful nation in the world and a a good track record of winning "wars" whether that fact is true or not, as a way to advance the agenda.

So what they are doing is pushing a progressive agenda, which by the very ideology erodes our rights, all for a feel good cause. So as the "war" progresses they need more and more money to fund the agenda and need more laws that tread on our rights to make that war more effective. To date we have spent more than 10 trillion dollars fighting the war on poverty, and not only is it not working it is failing miserably.

So now we run into an even deeper more sinister problem, they are now trying to say War is good. Even though we all know war is bad, this war is good because it is fighting for a good cause, again tugging on our heart strings.

They are playing off of our emotions. If you are even a just a little bit decent you don't want people to suffer. So now the power hungry are waging good wars, and passing unconstitutional laws to further advance their agenda, even though they are waging wars against things that will never go away. But it makes people feel good so they get the go ahead to do whatever is needed to win the "war".

So I don't think the mentality is so much progressing to the point of, "stay inline or we are going to get nuked", I think it is moving to the point of, "stay inline or you will be an enemy (of whatever agenda they want to progress)".

So I would say that we do have a war economy, not so much literally but more figuratively speakings. Or more accurate the Government as a war agenda.

reply to post by pause4thought



It's nothing new. OK granted Eisenhower immortalized the phrase...
But as far as this complex relationship goes it has been going on for centuries the US is just the latest example.

What is the Military-Industrial Complex?

The Military-Industrial Complex is a phrase used to signify a comfortable relationship between parties that are charged to manage wars (the military, the presidential administration and congress) and companies that produce weapons and equipment for war (industry). To put it simply, the Military-Industrial Complex is described as an all-too friendly relationship that may develop between defense contractors and government forces, where both sides receive what they are perceivably looking for: a successful military engagement for warplanners and financial profit for those manning the corporate boardrooms. It can be viewed as a “war for profit” theory.

The idea of war for profit is nothing new in the realm of human history and can be traced back centuries earlier where arms races and the power of navy ships ruled an empire’s reach. The arms race between the European powers of France, Spain and Britain could arguably be a primal version of today’s modern so-called military-industrial complex. The idea was that a country must build up and maintain a ready military - the largest in the world at that - to remain a world power. Centuries ago, such a military was necessitated to protect aggression from neighboring countries. These days, an invasion of the American homeland may seem ridiculous and contrary to the building of a global community founded in trust and respect. Others might argue differently.