Smilodonfatalis
Active Member
- May 5, 2013
- 745
- 126
- Thread starter
- #21
The "military-industrial complex" is a hilariously abused term....what the hell does it mean? That we manufacture our own weaponry? Isn't that good thing? There is and never has been a "conspiracy" to start wars so the major players could build more weapons. We keep them busy without that because we stay ready to fight in 2 major theatres. We wear out more systems practicing than to enemy fire.![]()
What did Eisenhower mean than when he used the term?
The world was a much different place 53 years ago.....we'd emerged from WW2 as the only major power not bombed into ruins. The weapons vendors were still converting production back to consumer products. Some weren't doing so well at that...they've been gone for over 30 years. I can't think of a defense contractor benefitting from from a phony reason for war since LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin days. You can mutter about Halliburton if you like but know who they are.....hundreds of independent contractors under their umbrella and the only company that can take on the massive supply requirements of a modern invasion force half way around the world. Then there's Blackwater....a collection of the finest snipers and ordnance-disposal techs in the world....I'm all for the outsourcing of military needs to Amercian companies....they have to perform or be replaced.
You have got to be kidding me.
Defense contractors didn't benefit from the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
You do realize the invasion of Iraq was for a phony reason, don't you?
Here's a link to an article about the war profiteering in Iraq, which was begun for as phony a reason as the Gulf of Tonkin.
Last edited: