This is so fucking disgusting. We ought to be tarring and feathering these execs and their largest investors, then taking their wealth for the public benefit.
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
289 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3450 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about this ages ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
It goes back further than that. Major General Smedley Butler wrote a book on it, "War is a Racket", back in 1935 - and I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first, either.
The last decent Republican president we've had.
If only people could have heard this message back then, then this all could have been avoided
Seems like some people heard it loud and clear... and invested accordingly.
You’re so right.
Eisenhower: “people, hear my warning or this terrible thing will happen”
Bastards: “He’s right, we can get rich from making that bad thing he’s warning about happen.”
Rule of Acquisition 34:
I prefer rule 35 :(
Peace is good for business.
What's this gif from
Lower Decks, an animated Star Trek comedy. It honors and references all things Trek and is considered canon. Starts off a bit too Rick and Morty, but finds it's own ground as it goes.
I love it, it takes the whole goodie twoshoes Starfleet ethos and turns it up to 11, while still being the B-team crew on a B-team ship, making it into an excellent Star Trek themed workplace comedy.
Peace Sells…but Who’s Buying?
Yes, because that's the whole point of war. Always has been. There might be a tangled web of parties involved, but money is always the consistent thread through it all.
Heavily decorated veteran Major General Smedley Butler was campaigning about this nearly 100 years ago.
Why didn’t they try to stop this war then?
People have been campaigning for peace in the Palestine region for longer than anyone's been alive. It's just that people pushing for war, driven by profit, have been far more effective.
What's interesting to look at, I think, is how restraint has been developed over the years. WW1 and WW2 were no doubt a big boon for the war industry, but at the same time because war was everywhere it had plenty of negative effects on the manufacturers and dealers themselves. Now, manufacturing and selling is kept safely away from the actual war itself.
You can make money from weapons without having to use them. For example if I had an a-bomb on a dead man’s switch I could walk around making all sorts of crazy demands much like countries do and no one has had to use one since shortly after they were invented. Your neighbours knowing you’re armed to the teeth will have an impact on their behaviour and you don’t have to fire a single bullet. Admittedly once you have full stockpiles of ammo you don’t need to buy until you start using it. I think this is why so much goes into r and d too keep it as a psychological deterrent for your enemies.
Sorry I just read the context of this reply. Clearly Israel’s enemy don’t give a shit what kind of weapons they have
Profiteering off of the suffering of others should be illegal.
It should be illegal to make a profit off of weapons of war.
Any product fabrication is so much more than the actual product. For a weapon you need steel, machinery, oil etc. Technically the petrol station near the factory also profits from the weapon factory. Where do you draw the line who can profit from it? Until it is legal to produce any weapon someone somewhere in the chain will profit from it. In a capitalist setting this cannot just vanish.
The part where I'm talking about targeting is manufacture and development. It's not realistic to penalize steel and petrol and other materials because that gets too messy and complicated.
Weapons should be manufactured only by one's government for express use in defense. No one should get paid more than a modest salary (something fair for their labor; I hadn't given it thought enough to say more than that at this time), no one in charge should make huge salaries or bonuses, it should be a thing people do because it pays rather than because of enrichment. Like how no one gets massively wealthy delivering mail or hauling garbage; sure, you can do quite well in some instances, but you're doing it to put food on the table rather than to gain power.
Sorry that I haven't more developed thoughts at this moment. But something roughly resembling this is what I had in mind when I posted the prior comment.
Your tax dollars at work. Fuck you if you have student loans, we'd rather spend our money making our shareholders rich though genocide.
"Hey Bob, you taking part of the wholesale slaughter of innocent people for fun and profit today?", "Ha ha, you know it!" /s
Obvious statement is obvious.
Fun fact: when countries use weapons to blow each other up, whomever is left always wants to buy more weapons.
“Across the entire Raytheon portfolio, you’re going to see a benefit of this restocking,” he told shareholders.
Reads like a cringy villian in a sci-fi movie
I really doubt it. Ukraine will use much more ordinance than Isreal ever will. But, anything to get more money from the rubes.
War is a racket
- Smedley Butler