4 ms·

The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 bi

The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.

aerostable_slug 9y ago
>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. Not really. China works just as well. Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese. There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
ende 9y ago
The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.
- primitur 9y ago
  Honestly, I find the American propensity to blame Russia for its actions in Crimea to be of the most blatant hypocrisy one can imagine. Russia has better arguments for defending its naval bases in Crimea from Ukraine hostility, than America has for .. Iraq .. Afghanistan .. Libya .. and so on. Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact. But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here. And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military? Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
  - ridewinter 9y ago
    > Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military? When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation? Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan. Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
    - user982 9y ago
      > Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
    - primitur 9y ago
      >USA threatened Canada and Mexico I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory? >Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan. This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
  - da02 9y ago
    I also suspect the US supported Neo-NAZIs in the Ukraine. Both Congress and the Obama Administration approved this, but only when Trump got elected and hurt the feelings of women, LGBT and various minorities did Americans get angry: * https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine * https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/ https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban... The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam & Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it. One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the-declassified-28-pages-on-911/ https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the... The US has given weapons to Mexican gangs: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congress-rips-obama-on-cover-up-of-fast-and-furious-gun-running https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congr... And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them. However, when a South American country decides to buy other than US-debt & weapons, it forments revolutions and installs dictators: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Lethal-CIA-Interventions-in-Latin-America-20160608-0031.html https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Le...
rocqua 9y ago
You think Russia is bad? Whatabout America [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
woodandsteel 9y ago
>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back? One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%. The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.
- primitur 9y ago
  >Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis? >Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US. >And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists. We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?

aerostable_slug 9y ago

>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. Not really. China works just as well. Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese. There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.

ende 9y ago

The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.

primitur 9y ago
Honestly, I find the American propensity to blame Russia for its actions in Crimea to be of the most blatant hypocrisy one can imagine. Russia has better arguments for defending its naval bases in Crimea from Ukraine hostility, than America has for .. Iraq .. Afghanistan .. Libya .. and so on. Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact. But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here. And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military? Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.
- ridewinter 9y ago
  > Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military? When was the last time the USA threatened Canada and Mexico with annihilation? Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan. Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Match that one Russia.
  - user982 9y ago
    > Iraq however was unjustified. The difference is that more than half of America admits it and thus freely elected a new President from a different party. Bush was reelected after the Iraq War by a larger margin than before, serving out his full two terms.
  - primitur 9y ago
    >USA threatened Canada and Mexico I dunno. When was the last time Canada and Mexico threatened to impound a US naval base? When was the last time Canada tried to ally with the US' principle military opponent and have its military assets installed on its territory? >Did terrorists based in the Ukraine fly hijacked airplanes into Moscow's skyscrapers? Because that's why the USA invaded Afghanistan. This is laughable. Those were Saudi terrorists, funded by the Saudi kingdom. By your (admittedly dubious American) logic, Russia should have invaded Hungary and destroyed its infrastructure entirely, just because Georgia sent some terrorists to Russian territory.
- da02 9y ago
  I also suspect the US supported Neo-NAZIs in the Ukraine. Both Congress and the Obama Administration approved this, but only when Trump got elected and hurt the feelings of women, LGBT and various minorities did Americans get angry: * https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine https://www.stpete4peace.org/Ukraine * https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/ https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban... The problems in mass shootings is a problem, but no one ever wants to ban military weapons from the US military and its PMCs that have killed lots of innocent people in the name of "liberation". Russia has a GDP similar to Mexico, yet the US spends $1 trillion to build the F-35 and Americans cheer because somehow China & Russia will gang up and takeover the world. Plus, you have the Phds and graduates who think we need to fight wars to maintain our standard of living. As if Saddam & Iran would refuse to sell the US oil because they want to keep it and drink it. One of the things people overlooked, was Osama was getting to be a pain on the Taliban factions. They were willing to give up Osama if the Bush administration could provide evidence. But, the Bush & Neocons wanted to use a war in the Middle East as an excuse to carry out policies: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te... I know it's hard to believe, but look at the 9/11 hijackers: They were mostly Saudi and planned the attacks in Germany and Florida, and had financial connections to factions within the Saudi royal government: https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the-declassified-28-pages-on-911/ https://28pages.org/2016/07/20/selected-revelations-from-the... The US has given weapons to Mexican gangs: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congress-rips-obama-on-cover-up-of-fast-and-furious-gun-running https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/26360-congr... And during the Clinton years, Mexico received a bailout... because most of the debt belonged to US politically connected big banks like Citigroup & others. Canada is now going to buy the F-35, so that would explain why the US doesn't really have problems with its neighbors: as long as they give US banks and military contractors money, the US won't interfere with them. However, when a South American country decides to buy other than US-debt & weapons, it forments revolutions and installs dictators: https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Lethal-CIA-Interventions-in-Latin-America-20160608-0031.html https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/10-of-the-Most-Le...

rocqua 9y ago

You think Russia is bad? Whatabout America [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

woodandsteel 9y ago

>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence. So you're saying that Russia would be a peaceful, friendly nation, except that the military-industrial complex, which is about 5% of the US economy, persuades congress, the State Department and every president (including Obama) to act in ways that force Russia to be militaristic back? One reason I find this highly improbable is there are lots of powerful political groups that benefit from peace and lower military spending. Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Furthermore, if your conspiracy theory was true, then military spending would be very high, like 10% of gdp like it was during the cold war. Instead it is, as I recall, down around 4%. The other reason is you seem to be assuming that Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. That certainly does not fit with Russia's history. I mean, the Russian Empire got to be an empire through a whole lot of military conquest. And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists.

primitur 9y ago
>Are you saying they just stand by and passively let the military-industrial lobby get what it wants? Are you really ignoring the acounting for $Trillion defence debt that gets lost by your Pentagon masters on a regular basis? >Putin and Russia are basically peace-loving. Tell me again, how many foreign nations has Russia invaded, destroyed their infrastructure, militarily occupied in the last .. lets just say 30 years? Now, how many has the USA invaded? By comparison, Russia is most definitely more peaceful than the US. >And Putin was for decades a dedicated communist who believed world peace could come about only through either revolution or conquest. And Russians are highly ethnicist and nationalist, not at all peaceful universalists. We're not even going to go into the Death Cult to which a significant majority of American military-industrial puppets belong, eh?