digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Ike Was Right about the Military-Industrial Complex

truthdig.com — The story argues that the push of the military-industrial-security economy is much more responsible for the Iraq war/debacle than is a thirst for oil.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33FTA: Wolfowitz "did argue that Iraq’s oil revenue would pay for our imperial adventure...a recent study marked that absurdity by estimating the true cost of the Iraq adventure to U.S taxpayers at a whopping $2.267 trillion..."

    I wouldn't doubt that figure above is in some nice proportion to Halliburton/other contractors' profits in Iraq. Lining the pockets of a nation's military-industrial complex has been a primary reason for war since the days of the Roman Empire. Bush is bringing this tradition soaring to new levels.

    With that in mind....here's a great solution: Bring our taxpayer-funded soliders/equipment home and let the contractors and their paid mercenaries (which I believe already equal or exceed in numbers the amount of troops we have stationed there) finish the job in Iraq. These war profiteers seem to have more at stake in Iraq than anyone else at this point. Let war profiteering run it's natural course. They can make the money...and take all the hits.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24Before someone passes this off as _just_ conspiracy theory, please keep in mind that America's involvement in WWI was largely attributed to the munitions industries playing up the fears of the American public. It was found that they had exaggerated or completely fabricated things the Kaiser was doing, which coincidently left people a little mistrusting when they began to hear about Hitler's atrocities.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Bring our taxpayer-funded soliders/equipment home and let the contractors and their paid mercenaries"

      I agree, but I don't want to pay the merchs or the contractors. Then we can really have the New World Order with fully recognized corporate armies.
    • mathchemist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@ Paul Wolfowitz: *****, I'll see you in hell!
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Dylan sang about Ike's message in '63.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_War

      Dylan is obviously timeless:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdvTN1PI-sM
    • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9@kooft

      So the sinking of the Lusitania by German U-Boats was made up?
    • pinoyboy82, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Because of our little war, I think Iraq is perfectly setup to be a puppet country open for the taking. If we take our troops out, we better be the puppet master!
    • jtlight, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@kooft

      Though there is definitely a military industrial complex now, to say that this was one of the main reasons for WWI is absolutely ludicrous. WWI was an example of a country (Germany) pushing the boundary on every front, from their atrocities in Belgium (go research that one a bit), to their submarine warfare, the first 3 years of the war were a constant foreign policy cat and mouse game with the US. Finally, they said screw it and tried to just win the war instead of appease America, thinking they could win the war before America was fully mobilized. This turned out to be not true. Not only that, but there were constant anti-German sentiments in the US from 1914. There was a large amount of abuse against German-Americans from the beginning of the war, which also helped lead to war. Plus, the munitions companies wanted America neutral, so they could play off Germany and Britain/France.

      All in all, I think that Ike was right, but your arguments about WWI are completely off base.

      p.s. The Lusitania was in 1915. America entered the war in 1917. This had some to do with US entry, but not as much as everyone assumes.
    • Bobnoxous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@brstilson
      The Lucitania was sunk because it was supplying arms to Britain and France, which the US denied, but shock, it was a lie. I guess the MIC needed to make sales then too.

      Maybe people feel it should've been okay to sell arms to Britain and France, but it's not totally surprising Germany would look down on supplying arms to their enemy, and we shouldn't be surprised when civilians die because they're surrounded by military targets. I suspect the civilians wouldn't have been happy had they known they were being used as a deterrent, or maybe the US gov just didn't care about them. It's hard to get into people's heads. And, it convinced the populace to support the war, which is so valuable.

      To understand history you need more than a list of "bullet points". Context is everything.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Though there is definitely a military industrial complex now, to say that this was one of the main reasons for WWI is absolutely ludicrous."

      True, my choice of words was poor. Instead of 'largely' I should have written 'in part'.


      "All in all, I think that Ike was right, but your arguments about WWI are completely off base."

      Here's a few snippets from the Nye Report (which resulted from the Senate Investigation of the Munitions Industry):

      "The committee finds, under the head of the effect of armament, on peace, that some of the munitions companies have occasionally had opportunities to intensify the fears of people for their neighbors and have used them to their own profit."

      "The committee finds, further, that the very quality which in civilian life tends to lead toward progressive civilization, namely the improvements of machinery, has been used by the munitions makers to scare nations into a continued frantic expenditure for the latest improvements in devices of warfare."

      "The committee finds, further, that munitions companies engaged in bribery find themselves involved in the civil and military politics of other nations, and that this is an unwarranted form of intrusion into the affairs of other nations and undesirable representation of the character and methods of the people of the United States."

      "The Committee finds, under the head of sales methods of the munitions companies, that almost without exception, the American munitions companies investigated have at times resorted to such unusual approaches, questionable favors and commissions, and methods of "doing the needful" as to constitute, in effect, a form of bribery of foreign governmental officials or of their close friends in order to secure business."


      I'll concede that my original wording was off, but completely off base? I think not.
    • Conspiracy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't forget to take notice of who has ties to the corporations that are profiting from this and other recent wars. When elected members of the American government go to war to pad their own wallets; America is over.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@brstilson

      You are buying a line that is long discredited to think the US entering WWI was about the Lusitania. Google up "the Committee for Public Information" if you want an eye-opener about how that war was sold to the public.

      Almost all wars are based on lies. Leaders who enter wars voluntarily are mass-murderers.
    • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wait... was this news to anyone?
    • goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How telling is it that nobody mentioned Operation Keelhaul, Eisenhower's decision which was responsible for millions of deaths. It's amazing how much people don't know when they rely on the mainstream media.

      In 1945, General Dwight Eisenhower ordered that "Operation Keelhaul" be put into effect. This involved rounding up and shipping back to "their countries of origin" ALL the refugees from communism: men, women and children, soldier or civilian, male or female — even though many of them had been fighting on OUR side during the war. Since all of Eastern Europe was then under Communist domination, sending these people back was, quite literally, a sentence of death, some by immediate execution and the rest by slow extermination from overwork and malnutrition in the Soviet slave labor camps in Siberia.

      These people were rounded up at bayonet point, forced into freight cars and shipped off to a terrible fate. There was no accurate count kept but the MINIMUM figure was 2,000,000 people and a maximum of 5,000,000. The elimination of all these anti-Communist people made the Communist domination of Eastern Europe MUCH easier. And the American people were kept blissfully unaware of this action which Eisenhower enforced rigidly, even though it violated international law, the laws of his own country and laws of humanity.
  • petroK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22I think Eisenhower's sentiments are very appropriate. A kind reminder of the dangers of a (then) recently defeated rise of fascism and how easy it is to justify a drift away from liberty in the name of security. Taken in retrospect of the cold war and the prospect of a continued struggle against terrorism, today's statesmen would do well to pay attention to these sentiments.
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Very well said. I firmly agree, but how sad to think that I think everyone I know doesn't see this. Yes that's sad, but what scares me is how many won't even accept this as possible. I try to convince people so often to only run into ignorance. I don't even act finaticle or anything I quietly try to show logic and say can you even understand something thinking this...and of course all I get is people yelling at me about how they are right. People won't even listen to this as POSSIBLE... (Sorry, the people I know) but that is what scares me the most. What will the U.S. or the world be in $20 years if already no one seems to be learning from what history teaches us.
    • Bobnoxous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is one of the things that makes the digg community a breath of fresh air. People here, generally, aren't simply puppets for some agenda. They have some technical abilities, which indicates they likely have some intelligence, which leads to critical thinking, and then, if things get really crazy, you start to question and research things, and maybe even educate others about what's propoganda and what's news. I get lots of pointers to great info on digg, stuff I wouldn't find on my own. All opinions are represented, some of which I think are absolutely terrible, but that's much better than just one opinion being repeated forever (making it true?).
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ha ha, I put a dollar sign in.... work habits... sink this comment. If you are referring to me, I wasn't saying the article made it true... I meant that YES, I support this fully. I agree. Cheers! And what's sad is that no one else will even listen to reason on the subject.... Was your comment at me? explain a little more please...
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"This is one of the things that makes the digg community a breath of fresh air. People here, generally, aren't simply puppets for some agenda. They have some technical abilities, which indicates they likely have some intelligence, which leads to critical thinking, and then, if things get really crazy, you start to question and research things, and maybe even educate others about what's propaganda and what's news. I get lots of pointers to great info on digg, stuff I wouldn't find on my own. All opinions are represented, some of which I think are absolutely terrible, but that's much better than just one opinion being repeated forever (making it true?)."

      Quoting the whole thing over because it's so true and so well said.
  • Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I recommend the documentary: "Why We Fight"

    It focuses in on the Military-Industrial Complex.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Don't forget "Iraq for Sale"
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yes, please don't...

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815181/
      Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

      3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful:-
      Everyone in Congress as well as every American needs to see this film!, 7 October 2006
      10/10
      Author: stphinkle from United States

      "This film shows how our tax dollars were wasted! We are paying contractors at prices far higher than what it costs us for the same thing. For example, buying new trucks every time one of them gets a minor maintenance problem. Another example of abuse is the fact that we are paying $99 per bag of laundry to get it washed by a contractor. Still another example of abuse, is that one of the contractors is supplying water to our troops that contains diseases in it for people to shower in. Also, it shows in detail how we paid to torture war prisoners. Another shocking detail was how the contractors did not get the proper equipment to protect themselves. Additionally, the contract workers were saying in 5-star hotels at night, while our troops were getting tents. What is even more shocking is the connections these companies have with officials, and how contracts to them were awarded without taking bids.

      Our country needs to stand up, and hold our people in the white house, congress, the justice department, and our military accountable for these actions. We have spent almost a half a trillion dollars on the Iraq War now, and billions of it were wasted in this abuse of our money by these private contractors. Thanks to Robert Greenwald for getting out the truth to the American public again!!!!!"
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026 [BBC Documentary]
    • Bobnoxous, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You cannot give a government lots of money and power, and then think you can make them do your bidding. It never has worked, and never will. The more powerful the government gets, the more abuses of power there will be. The only way to hold them accountable for the debacle of Iraq is to elect representatives that really do want to reduce the government's size and power, so that being politically connected won't be so profitable. People need to stop trying to use the government to solve every problem. Governments always want to grow and become more powerful, and eventually the "represented" lose the reigns completely. That's why we have revolutions now and then. Hmm, would now be a good time?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's the Trailer for Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (2006):

      http://iraqforsale.org/
  • Chode2235, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Chomsky has talked at length about this. Any critical investigation of our economy, and those in control of the government and the economy will show that it is incredibly dependent on war/potential war. The entire tech sector is a result of military applications (computers included). Anyone who really doesn't realize this is just pretending not to. IMHO.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I had a friend who's father was very highup in Lochead Martin. In the late 90's (when the stock was very low esp cause of peace time---during the tech bubble). He bought at 15/share. What's it at today?
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11When there is this much profit to be made from war, there will be a lot more of it. (A quote, but I don't remember of whom).

    The changes in our army so that soldiers don't maintain our own bases anymore, instead turning that over to contractors has allowed the military to stealthy grow in size, along with the spending (if you count the money given to contractors).

    War profiteering should be made illegal. Not because I am against capitalism, but because if this is allowed the principles of how capitalism will work to put us at war more often, killing more people. Capitalsm should be followed when it benefits society as a whole but not slavishly followed when it doesn't.
    • positron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This is the reason why the Constitution forbids the maintenance of a standing army.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@positron

      You will now hear:

      "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact!!!!!"

      "Anarchist!!!!"

      Etc.

      But when you add it up, johnny-come-lately authoritarians are NEVER wiser than the Founders.

      Here is to a future of no entanglements!
    • Iandefor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"War profiteering should be made illegal. Not because I am against capitalism, but because if this is allowed the principles of how capitalism will work to put us at war more often, killing more people. Capitalsm should be followed when it benefits society as a whole but not slavishly followed when it doesn't."

      Indeed. Capitalism holds that self-interest leads to the best results for all; I don't disagree *entirely* with this, but it certainly doesn't lead to the best results for all when some companies use the state as a club or a money-press to artificially generate profit outside a real market.
  • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't have a source handy, but I read that Kennedy was asked if he would take on the military industrial complex. He said that it would take his entire time and term to go head to head with the Pentagon. He said he wanted to achieve more.
    • Chode2235, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8JFK ran on the platform of the 2.5 war strategy. He suggested that it was necessary for the US military to have the ability to have two large fronts (ie Europe and Japan-ish) as well as a smaller skirmish going on at one time. He defineatly did not back away from the pentagon, or the mil-industrial-complex. He was a stout cold warrior, who won the election by calling Nixon a wimp. (sound familiar)
  • warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Most men who have seen the true face of war despise it, like Eisenhower.
    Men who have not seen that same face rush into it...no name needed.
  • The_Dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Good, old "Guns or Butter"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model

    And good, old "war is a racket": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22war+is+a+racket%22&btnG=Google+Search
  • VeryBoredNow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I always thought it was funny how all these "crazy" people who see UFO's and lizards that control the world, actually make more sence than some high-ranking officials. A lot more sence.
  • EbowUK, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1Sorry, I've not heard of "Military-Industrial Complex" before.

    Was it the B-side of "River Deep, Mountain High"?
    • pyite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This was part of Eisenhower's farewell speech.

      A lot of people believe that World War 2 is what "saved" us from the Depression - one reason why the government has been developing a permanent war-time economy ever since. We basically took over the British Empire once they could no longer afford it. I am guessing that China will be doing that to us soon enough since we are now bankrupt.

    • CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Then the same cycle happens to China, and another country following will take its place. It's a pattern shown throughout history, and many years down the rode will it start over from the beginning again.
  • needles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It doesn't exactly take a genius to figure this out. I mean why is the US spending more than the rest of the world COMBINED? Is the US planning on invading the whole world? It's just ridiculous, and it will be americas downfall.
    • totallydismayed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't know, I think it's a little disingenuous to say that this is all the result of defense contractors. I tend to believe Bush was planning on going into Iraq regardless of whether or not WMDs were found to be true, regardless of the so-called military-industrial complex, and regardless of even 9/11. The fact is the folks in charge of our country sign the checks and set policy, and when their vision includes going on a never-ending romp for freedom around the globe of course companies are going to step up and cash in on that. It's no different than if tomorrow we were to declare a new space race to the moon -- companies would start lining up outside of the capital waiting for a turn to suck on the old government tit. :) In fact most of the same players in the military-industrial complex are also responsible for making civilian aircraft, space technologies, communications satellites, and so on. A contract is a contract to these guys and they have the capability to enter any of these markets. This being the case, I don't think it's so much the contractors focusing on military technology, since they can easily make technology in any of these markets, as a matter of supply and demand. The only way to change demand in a case like this is to vote for new policy-makers. This is why it's important to vote.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What I'm worried about is America's bad behavior continuing, pissing off the international community enough so that they gang up against us. I don't think America could survive a UN invasion (especially since the bulk of the troops would likely be overseas). Sure, that isn't going to happen now because the US is so important to the economies of China and the like, but the value of the dollar is plummeting as well. If Europe starts supporting the world's economy like the US is doing now, then it could be all over for us.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2A UN invasion would never fly long here.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The UN could barely "invade" the Upper West Side even when traffic is light.
  • tesler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It is a matter of perspective: It is the folks on the WAHHABI PAYROLL responsible for the Iraq debacle:

    1) James Baker - Life long plus the lead attorney for Saudis vs 9/11 American victims.
    2) Madeline Albright - US port deal, and her silence on the Darfur plus home deliver of Visas to Saudis.
    3) The 50 former Middle East Ambassadors who have business dealing with Saudis in 10s of millions;
    4) Harvard University. George Washington University, and UCLA 10 of millions in donations every year.
    5) ACLU anti-terror activity funded by top law firms with Wahhabi clients, and proxying for the Wahhabist.
    6) Media Companies: Saudis own sizable share of most media organizations undermining the Iraq war not to mention NY Times.
    7) Most think tanks in DC, and many former employees of govt agencies particularly the State Department are on the Wahhabi payroll.

    After all Saudis own 15% of this country, and are funding most of the activity undermining the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, and oil companies have been there before the Iraq war so nothing new. What is dangerous is the bi-partisan corruption, and the enormous Wahhabist behind the scenes string pulling most Americans are oblivious too. Remember the other other illegal war in Balkans which they funded but nobody complained since everybody was on the Saudi gravy train. But this time around the real super power is against the war, and hence the mess.
  • pyite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The big defense contractors own two of the 3 biggest networks (NBC, CBS). They were certainly gung-ho for this war.

    The only real anti-war voice that I remember on the Main Stream Media before the war was Phil Donahue. He was fired from MSNBC despite having the highest ratings on the network. Once the war was a done deal, more criticism was allowed.

    Perhaps it was just a coincidence. I was against the war from the beginning though, so I might be biased. I remember feeling that there was a severe shortage of criticism at the time. Maybe it was just part of the 9/11 hangover.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Here's a video about it. SNL TV Funhouse, Conspiracy Theory Rock, Censored By NBC, Only Aired Once

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=965683749801668899
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Awesome vdeo - funny.
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're right on there.

      There were nothing but softball questions for the president in the entire run up for the war. Nobody asked a single hard question. I couldn't believe my ears/eyes watching CSPAN at the time. It was perplexing, infuriating. Was it by design? I don't know.

      I think we can understand that the hard questions were not being asked inside the administration either.

      So it was not just the Haliburtons. It was a convergence of many party's self-interest to get a war on. Not just the war machine and big oil, but Ideology (or ideologues) played a major part. Wolfowitz claiming that you can invade a country and then steal it's resources to pay for your attack is illegal and repugnant but most definitely enabled by his ideology. His wing-nut ideology that is against all forms of government and government action except (suprise suprise!) military intervention. Because the military is magic, I guess.

      It was a case of pan-institutional failure. The money that purchased influence --that ideology again: Laws granted to the highest bidder imply a form of economic efficiency to extremists. Even the majority of citizens of the US that did blindly follow shoulder blame because collectively they ought to have known better and could have done something. Polls are done. Their opinion counted. How was the rest of the world was so steadfast against the war when the US population was not? Yes a couple governments were believers, but I'm talking about the people. Vastly against except a very few places.

      Back in the US, the majority do not trust government in their own lives, yet somehow trust it to run the lives of the Iraqis'? Is it intellectual lazyness and indifference? The general discourse was clearly not as vigorous as in other countries.

      I think that since the Iraqi endevour has gone to hell and will impact future living standards in the US and the UK, that fact is actually beneficial for these countries. It would be beneficial for the US/UK to pay substantial war reparations when Iraq finally gets back on their feet. For a society to choose rational actions, it must bear the true costs of those actions. (Even Wolfowiz would agree with that statement.) This may make the US&UK poorer, but it would make them a little wiser the next time around.

      Many in the world see GW Bush's life mirror that of the US as a whole in the sense that he was born wealthy enough to be insulated from poor decisions. We've all known individuals like that: they may even sail through life easily but they never will be fully realized people. And their behaviour is often to the detriment of those around them. The same follows for societies.
  • munen123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yea really the iraq war was to protect americans!! from those darn WMDs, jeez guys come on get with the program and watch fox. Bill O'dummy will set all of you diggers straight! stop hating the military industrial player GWBush...

    /sarcasm/

    We need change in our country, if people like bush and crew keep getting elected we will surely crumble. Its the height of hypocrisy went we spend billions to "help out" the poor iraq people from the evil US made bad guy Saddam and some event like Katrina happens and they just let the poor people of New Orleans rot in the streets...
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you have alot to learn young Padawan. We will hot fail from the top down. When America fails it will be from the inside.
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bush and crew? Wake up friend. Both sides are the same. They talk different games but in the end the American people get screwed.
  • ejpusa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Well yes, we all know this, blah, blah, blah, military industrial complex, blah, blah, blah - alternative project? -- $1 dollar for defense matched with $1 dollar for peace? Haliburton does not really care if they build a jail or disney land -- just as long as they make oddles of bucks.

    BUT I really think it's the "Space People" gene, by following this military budget approach, throwing zillions of dollars at stupid projects, eventually we'll get a hit where we basically design a better space ship to get us to another planet (remember Tang? -- and that pesky thing called "the internet", both out of military/space budgets). Is it just me, but doesn't everyone see that our whole "thinking thing" is to leave earth before the sun does us in? hmmmm, if I'm so smart, why am I so poor! :-) yipes
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Haven't people figured out yet that using the phrase "military-industrial complex" pretty much gets you ignored? It's like other silly cliches like "The Establishment."
    • firepig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would agree it is not accurate to talk about THE military-industrial (and I would add security) complex. On the other hand it is naive to think any organization or individual with the power to do so will not try to influence the government to its benefit. Some of the more serious cases of Congressional misconduct involve relations with defense contractors. The case of a San Diego congressman comes readily to mind.

      There is a great example of cooperation (I don't call it a conspiracy) in California right now, one that is clearly and accurately documented. One of the leading campaign contributors to statewide candidates is the prison workers union. It is no coincidence that prison building has been a leading California industry. And, on what side of the Three Strikes Law was this union?!

      Actually it is misleading to discuss people involved in this thread as conspiracy theorists. What we're discussing here is the politics of influence. President Bush received about 60 million votes (I mean dollars) before he even declared for the presidency. I don't have the statistics, but I bet many if not most of the individuals and organizations who provided that huge sum have profited mightily from the war.l They were not engaged in a conspiracy. They were playing the game---perfectly legal, perfectly above board.
  • Chadster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'd be inclined to dismiss this article as another conspiracy theory, however; too many leading officials in Washington and their buddies are profiting from this war.
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3that is probably true, but SFW? Major profits have been made. One of the reason to intervene in WWII was to help create jobs and lift the country out of the Great Depresson
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Just another article by a lame conspiracy theorist.
  • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0Our advanced military should be a source of pride. No amount of money is too much to bring freedom to the people of Iraq and secure our oil supplies and economy. Thank you President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rummy, and Condi for staying the course even though half of the people in our country are candy asses too chicken to fight a few starving insurgents. We don't deserve you.
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3$USD 2.2 Trillion / 26 Million population of Iraq = USD$84.5K per Iraqi

      You could have just given them the money: they'd have ousted Saddam themselves, built a giant Disneyland and given you all their oil. Dare I say it: You'd have been greeted with roses. ; )

      But as it is, there is a sort of freedom in death.

      (You do deserve each other.)
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@amightywind

      Are you serious? On drugs?
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Anyone who calls the Military Industrial Complex a "Conspiracy Theory" is a complete ignorant moron.
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Alex Jones has been talking about and showing proof of this for YEARS. People really should stop their "omg conspiracy" reflex, listen to Alex and research what he says. If you do you will gain invaluable knowledge far before the sheeple begin to catch on.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't know much about Mr. Jones, but there's video of Ike talking about the same thing in "Why We Fight."
  • MacLiberal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The americans had to keep their Military Industrial Complex going at all costs, the problem is that there was no threat to them, so manufacture a crisis and invade a country that should be easy to take over, then use them for the oil, at least that was the plan.
    • truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh but there is a threat...its the U.S. economy...when Corporations bottom lines suck, less tax is paid by them to support the hill.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Multinationals like we're talking about don't pay taxes. Hyperlink into reality.
  • Petrov101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The USA spends approx 4% of it's GDP on military defense programs.
    Source : CIA factbook.

    As a comparison, France expends 2.6%, Germany 1.5%, China 4.3%....

    The fact that USA military expenditures in absolute $ are so high reflects the relative size of the US economy.






    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I believe everything the CIA says!
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let me know what the real deflated number is when we are once again allowed to know the M3 number.
  • Noods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is a documentary that goes into depth about this subject. Search YouTube for "Why We Fight". It may be in parts but it is a must-watch.
  • portwojc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well the author was doing good until he mentioned the UN. What do they do again beyond allowing problems to continue and people getting rich just like the certain ones he's complaining about.
  • rjnagle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Petrov101; this is a fallacy; budgets need to be talked about in absolute terms because the threat needs to be addressed regardless of what a country's standard of living is. Whether you're economy is big or small has no effect on the level of military threat or how you ought to respond to it. Percentage of GDP is a very dangerous way to assess whether military spending is acceptable. In effect, you are exonerating arms races and justifying support for private industries when there is not a demonstrable need.

    finally, consider the implications of your words. When China's GDP approaches that of US (in the year 2020 or so), does that give them the right to spend as much on defense as we do (or more?)

    Defense spending imposes consequences on domestic program. It also increases federal budgets with detrimental effects on the overall economy. Simply because the percentage is "normal" (in historical terms) does not mean it's good for the economy or the people.
  • truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1With good Americans selling out their own Industries, like the American Automobile (the second to the last big industry), without the Military Machine running full tilt (last big industry), America would implode. We can't survive making bowling balls, tape measures, baseball bats and hot dogs.
    So for now, I have to support the WAR MACHINE like it or not and I don't like it ! Its the last to put bread on the table.

    We, as a Country, need find some way to explain that High Quality American Cars being built today, far exceed those built 20 and 30 years ago. Our economy being destroyed by import cars. Your hard earned money goes back into the economy when you buy American. Its your second biggest purchase and you shouldn't be exporting the second biggest purchase in your household overseas. I'm not trying to plug the auto industry, I'm just stating the facts. Modular housing is next. Japan is already working on it.

    Our biggest problem in America is too many new faces chasing the American Dream with no duty to America. Even most our own children have no duty to our country. Maybe the draft was good for young people, today they have no pride cause there's nothing to look forward to. Immigrants are destroying their dream and don't even realize it. Want to put a supermarket out of business, go down the street and get your groceries from a competitor that buys the same goods from the same farmers.
    We must build cars, buy them and with no excuses with today's quality. If the quality wasn't there, you wouldn't see 100,000 mile warranties from our Auto Industry.

    Cars or Tanks, which do you prefer??? Vote starts when you're done reading.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Isreal got a $2 Trillion war for no skin of their own in the game with 3000 dead US soldiers to ice the cake. We are now bankrupt and unable to compete.

      ***** yeah my kids won't be paying for this. They have second passports and will renounce their citizenship when the bill comes due.

      But here's a hint, Michael Chetoff has a second passport too. Do you think he will stick around to be accountable for the cost of the Homeland Security fraud?
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is all just speculation. Plenty of military contractors are getting LESS money because of the Iraq war, and these contractors also have expensive lobbyists. The message is, we spent your R&D and equipment money in Iraq on the troops.
  • Petrov101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Rjnagle: The point I was trying to make was that for every $1 the USA "makes", 4 cents goes to defense contracts. It is my opinion that this is not excessive. I support investment in military technology. I don't want our soldiers entering combat without the best equipment available. I work in both military and commercial industries. Commercial is out for the next new, cheap, shiny product. Support is measured in years (tops). Military is in it for the long haul requiring support for decades! Military contractors will dry up without regular funding.

    Yes, I fully expect China to invest as much if not more than the USA in military contracts. With luck, our economies will be so intertwined by then that war will be a money losing option for both sides. 4 cents on the dollar is not going to bankrupt the country.

    LittleByLittle: I understand your cynicism regarding the source of this information. I have referenced Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac as well and the numbers are close to the same. More research would be required to validate the numbers of course. If you could recommend another source, I'd appreciate it.
  • adeze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1its all about the UFO's...
  • SpeedersKill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0An even more insidious complex is that between the government and the media.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Every war the US gets into people scream it is because of the industrial complex.
    THEY are so powerful, nothing can be done.

    One of many conspiracy theories people believe in with all their hearts.

    I know people like to believe this chaotic world is somehow more organized and somebody is controlling it. It makes people feel better to know that there is someone out there making order out of chaos. But there isn't. The Jews, oil companies, military establishment, governments, and your local Wal Mart are not all powerful. And they do not control the world. They are just as unorganized and powerless in the chaotic world as you and I.
  • firepig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Petrov notes the CIA says the USA spends approximately 4% of its GDP on military defense programs. I wonder if that figure includes little, off budget items like the war in Iraq. The CIA figure is probably accurate---by the CIA's definition. The catch is how much more defense spending is hidden elsewhere in and off budget.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.