4 ms·

We need to blame the voters as much as we blame the politicians. People get so scared that they demand a dictatorship, basically. Look at the scare du jour, IS

We need to blame the voters as much as we blame the politicians. People get so scared that they demand a dictatorship, basically. Look at the scare du jour, ISIS. I mean, come on! We have the worlds largest military by a factor of 10, and yet people are peeing their pants at the sight of a few gun-toting crazies 8,000 miles away!! We faced down USSR which had the capability to annihilate us 100 times over, and yet we cringe at the sight of ISIS. What's wrong with these people?

oh_sigh 10y ago
Different kind of enemy.
dmix 10y ago
ISIS is hardly a problem when it comes to the military industrial complex. The constant fear mongering over Russia recently is the real and serious driver here. The military doesn't want to fight ISIS because it's not predicated on expensive jets, aircraft carriers, naval warfare, cyber, etc, etc. It's not a mistake that any level of provocation by Russia is met with weeks of saber rattling and outrage in the media. Although ISIS is a good driver for expanding the intelligence community. Hillary Clinton's primary military strategy that she promotes on her website is expanding an already bloated intelligence community and broadening intelligence collection. Both candidates are very much industrial complex friendly. That's one of the few things that's certain in this election.
- rfrank 10y ago
  if pure military industrial complex expansion was the goal, we'd already be fighting in the south china sea. a huge amount of manufacturing would be forced to move stateside again, and lockheed/nothrop/boeing/raytheon/etc. etc. would make a lot of money.
- gaius 10y ago
  expensive jets, aircraft carriers, naval warfare, cyber But it is - the US military fought the Taliban in a landlocked country with F18s launched from aircraft carriers 200 miles away!
gaius 10y ago
Or North Korea - the idea that it could really threaten the US (like in the reboot of Red Dawn, a terrible film, stick to the original) is ludicrous.
- comex 10y ago
  What's your definition of "threaten"? North Korea cannot win an all-out war with the US. But it seems reasonably probable that at some point in the decades to come, they'll acquire the ability to start such a war by hitting the US mainland with one or more nuclear missiles, potentially killing millions of civilians in one blow, in a catastrophe utterly unprecedented in world history - not to mention what they could do to South Korea and other nearer countries today. And while their leadership probably isn't crazy enough to actually start a war, they're pretty damn crazy. I consider that a threat.
njharman 10y ago
This, "plebes" are too easily manipulated, is why founders went for representative rather than direct democracy. Sadly, they underestimated the ability for power to entrench itself despite term limits, separation of powers, federal/state split, etc.
jwtadvice 10y ago
The state specifically fear-mongers in an attempt to get the powers they want. "Shock Doctrine". Given the influence the state has on the media, it's nearly impossible to blame the electorate. They exist in a media bubble that makes these state-sanctioned power grabs seem reasonable, even cost-free.

oh_sigh 10y ago

Different kind of enemy.

dmix 10y ago

ISIS is hardly a problem when it comes to the military industrial complex. The constant fear mongering over Russia recently is the real and serious driver here. The military doesn't want to fight ISIS because it's not predicated on expensive jets, aircraft carriers, naval warfare, cyber, etc, etc. It's not a mistake that any level of provocation by Russia is met with weeks of saber rattling and outrage in the media. Although ISIS is a good driver for expanding the intelligence community. Hillary Clinton's primary military strategy that she promotes on her website is expanding an already bloated intelligence community and broadening intelligence collection. Both candidates are very much industrial complex friendly. That's one of the few things that's certain in this election.

rfrank 10y ago
if pure military industrial complex expansion was the goal, we'd already be fighting in the south china sea. a huge amount of manufacturing would be forced to move stateside again, and lockheed/nothrop/boeing/raytheon/etc. etc. would make a lot of money.
gaius 10y ago
expensive jets, aircraft carriers, naval warfare, cyber But it is - the US military fought the Taliban in a landlocked country with F18s launched from aircraft carriers 200 miles away!

gaius 10y ago

Or North Korea - the idea that it could really threaten the US (like in the reboot of Red Dawn, a terrible film, stick to the original) is ludicrous.

comex 10y ago
What's your definition of "threaten"? North Korea cannot win an all-out war with the US. But it seems reasonably probable that at some point in the decades to come, they'll acquire the ability to start such a war by hitting the US mainland with one or more nuclear missiles, potentially killing millions of civilians in one blow, in a catastrophe utterly unprecedented in world history - not to mention what they could do to South Korea and other nearer countries today. And while their leadership probably isn't crazy enough to actually start a war, they're pretty damn crazy. I consider that a threat.

njharman 10y ago

This, "plebes" are too easily manipulated, is why founders went for representative rather than direct democracy. Sadly, they underestimated the ability for power to entrench itself despite term limits, separation of powers, federal/state split, etc.

jwtadvice 10y ago

The state specifically fear-mongers in an attempt to get the powers they want. "Shock Doctrine". Given the influence the state has on the media, it's nearly impossible to blame the electorate. They exist in a media bubble that makes these state-sanctioned power grabs seem reasonable, even cost-free.