4 ms·
The Wall Street comments are a bit vague/nebulous, but the amount we've spent on unnecessary war-mongering even after Vietnam is a relatively obvious problem th
by lend000 10y ago
The Wall Street comments are a bit vague/nebulous, but the amount we've spent on unnecessary war-mongering even after Vietnam is a relatively obvious problem that apparently is no longer obvious, now that we lost our "anti-war" party (the formerly anti-war Democrats).
Our bureaucratic programs at home are enough to dig us into a deep financial hole (war-mongering wasn't the source of Greece's problems), but with the added trillions wasted on building old weapons to perpetually blow up and rebuild bridges (not to mention the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the US), we are truly buried financially.
He probably doesn't even know about the CIA's less publicized warfare in Central/South America and the financial/other consequences of the drug war on our own citizens and especially on our neighbors.
- srean 10y ago..but but without frequent wars how are we going to run a welfare state for big corporations that produces artifacts with no natural demand. How are we supposed to channel tax payer's money to them so that they can share some of them back by employing people
- fennecfoxen 10y agoEthanol credits, duh.
- kmuber 10y agothe wikipedia model.
- devoply 10y agoWar in the US is essentially corruption rearing its ugly head. American political elite can't make money through local corruption because there are too many controls in place. So instead they make money by attacking and looting other countries through under the table, or even over the table, business deals. As Smedley Butler said, war is a racket. Americans are getting robbed and at the same time cheering on their politician robbers. Support our troops, yeah!
- peterwwillis 10y agoHis comments only cover the past 30 years. CIA coups and secret wars mostly stopped in the early 90's. Now they use other means to destabilize south american economies.
- devoply 10y agoMany economies in the South destabilize themselves due to bad leadership and the elite trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the system and the people.
- lend000 10y ago> Many economies in the South destabilize themselves due to bad leadership and the elite trying to enrich themselves at the expense of the system and the people. It's a gross falsehood to claim that US interventions in Latin America have not contributed significantly to the rise of military dictatorships (many of which were installed or supported by the US at one point) and cartels (funded by our drug war). But good thing we were there to overthrow the dictator General Noriega (whom we had previously installed). Recommended reading: http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804 http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/53...
- devoply 10y agoOkay and even without American meddling how far have those countries come on their own?
- lend000 10y ago> even without American meddling But there has been American meddling, so not sure what hypothetical scenario you are trying to play with...? The countries that are furthest from America's destructive reach / the least "meddled" with are Chile and Argentina, and surprise surprise, those are the most economically and socially stable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countries_by_Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_American_countri... Regardless, the spillage of violence and the far-reaching effects of our drug war have had a lasting effect on the entire region.