4 ms·

>I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you h

>I think it is a very disconcerting notion that we would allow a private entity to possess the equipment and infrastructure to wage war Why? Do you feel you have any real say in what our public entity does with its equipment and infrastructure to wage war? Those capabilities are already in the hands of the highest bidder. >How do we ensure they don't go rogue? The public entity is already rogue.

wbl 9y ago
Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
- knieveltech 9y ago
  How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
- 3131s 9y ago
  Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.
michaelchisari 9y ago
That's a poor argument for taking warfare out of the hands of democratically elected governments, no matter how aloof you may feel them to be, and putting it in the hands of unaccountable private corporations, who by definition have no mechanism of popular recourse.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  How could the private corporation not be accountable to the nations in which it exists? They are building, selling, and training those personnel somewhere. They're still getting their money from the governments. The difference is the disillusionment of the people.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Who says these private corporations are tied to specific nations?
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Am I being too obtuse by pointing out that a corporation, by definition, requires the legal framework of a nation to even exist? I'll point out again that these private forces need to have their training facilities somewhere, buy their weapons somewhere, etc.
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        Not obtuse, but I do think you are being naive.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        We have private corporations today manufacturing our nuclear weapons and that has worked out fine without them "going rogue." Historically, private fighting forces are not unique or unusual in any way. So what exactly am I being naive about?

wbl 9y ago

Do you really think the US armed forces go to war without the President's authorization to do so?

Consultant32452 9y ago
You don't get to be the President unless you're already aligned with who the monied interests want you to wage war against.
knieveltech 9y ago
How is the requirement to obtain the President's authorization a refutation of the premise? Are we pretending that the last four wars this country fought (not to mention the countless police actions and funded regime change) had any point beyond making a handful of wealthy people even wealthier? Are we pretending that the American people at large benefited in any way from any of these actions?
3131s 9y ago
Do you really think the war industry would just roll over while a pacifist won the US presidency? These people don't have the same boundaries as normal humans. The DoD has engaged in probably the most expensive propaganda campaign in history to legitimize their activities, and any anti-war candidate would have to survive this barrage of money against them. And I seriously doubt that using violence, even against a president, is out of the realm of possibility for them. Every US president knows that they will make serious enemies, at home and abroad, if they cancel arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia.

michaelchisari 9y ago

That's a poor argument for taking warfare out of the hands of democratically elected governments, no matter how aloof you may feel them to be, and putting it in the hands of unaccountable private corporations, who by definition have no mechanism of popular recourse.

Consultant32452 9y ago
How could the private corporation not be accountable to the nations in which it exists? They are building, selling, and training those personnel somewhere. They're still getting their money from the governments. The difference is the disillusionment of the people.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  Who says these private corporations are tied to specific nations?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Am I being too obtuse by pointing out that a corporation, by definition, requires the legal framework of a nation to even exist? I'll point out again that these private forces need to have their training facilities somewhere, buy their weapons somewhere, etc.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      Not obtuse, but I do think you are being naive.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        We have private corporations today manufacturing our nuclear weapons and that has worked out fine without them "going rogue." Historically, private fighting forces are not unique or unusual in any way. So what exactly am I being naive about?