5 ms·

It makes me sad that over a decade later, we still fall for that trap. My rule of thumb to explain things is "follow the money". Several industries have handso

It makes me sad that over a decade later, we still fall for that trap. My rule of thumb to explain things is "follow the money". Several industries have handsomly profited over this situation, but don't believe anybody else gained from that: not us Americans as a whole, certainly not those who had to deal with war in their own place.

maxxxxx 8y ago
I have been in the US since 2000 and I really believe this country needs war to stay together. Without an external enemy people will start fighting each other.
- Buldak 8y ago
  I have difficulty seeing the Iraq War (or Vietnam, or really any war since WW2) as a source of unity among Americans.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    How about the "Cold war" and the "War on terror"? I agree that the country is looking for a feel good war where they get out as heroes and winners like WW2. The golf wars were planned to be that but didn't work out.
- Tempest1981 8y ago
  Let’s unify around renewable energy for the world.
  - TaylorAlexander 8y ago
    And open source knowledge!
- mikeash 8y ago
  If you had been here during the 90s, you would have seen us being perfectly fine without a war. Not that the 90s were completely peaceful for us, but we had long stretches without much going on. There was plenty of stupid political infighting, but nothing like the division caused by the invasion of Iraq.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    From a distance it looked like the country lost its mind with the Clinton situation. I think that was also the start of the current extreme partisanship.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      It was far worse with Obama, despite the wars going on.
  - bluntfang 8y ago
    huh? crack epidemic. Rodney King. Gang violence. NYC crime wave. etc.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      All (except Rodney King) trending nicely down during that time.
- kibwen 8y ago
  Perpetual war against impoverished countries isn't bringing the US together--in truth it's one of the biggest issues currently tearing the US public apart.
- java_script 8y ago
  > Without an external enemy people will start fighting each other. Thank God there's none of that happening.
- curioussavage 8y ago
  I don’t think that’s true. I’d argue the opposite. Especially given the whole melting pot nature. Whoever the current “enemy” is there always plenty of “them” or people who look like “them” living here which means we get things like internment of Japanese Americans or the harassment of anybody who looks like they could be from the Middle East. There is plenty of patriotism drummed up buts it’s all shallow. Support the troops has more to do with letting your government send them to die wherever they want and less about concern for them.
almost_usual 8y ago
"but don't believe anybody else gained from that: not us Americans as a whole" Engineering Departments get large portions of their revenues through Defense programs. MIT's Lincoln Laboratory made 27% of their revenue (roughly a billion dollars) in 2016. That's one research center. Do you have an engineering degree? Were your facilities nice? Might want to follow the money with that. http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  But is it worth millions dead?
- singron 8y ago
  Lincoln Labs is an R&D facility dedicated to military technology. It doesn't really make sense to compare their funding composition to facilities without similar purpose.
- mtalantikite 8y ago
  I think we probably could have figured out a way to give MIT $1 billion/year without going to war for $1.5 trillion. Like maybe not going to war and instead spending that money on research.
- ClassyJacket 8y ago
  There's nothing in your comment that logically follows that a war is required to give engineering grants. Solution: Give engineering departments money without a war. You would, in fact, have far more money to give if it wasn't spent on war.
  - almost_usual 8y ago
    History and the technology we all use today disagrees with you. NASA (really NACA) wouldn’t exist today if the Soviets hadn’t launched Sputnik. Competition and fear spur quite a bit of innovation and public reason for funding research projects. Convincing large amounts of people to give you money without reason doesn’t usually work. War is easy to sell, people can conceptualize the risk easily. I’d argue you’d see more funding and research for preventing climate change if it were as easy to conceptualize risk wise for the general public.

maxxxxx 8y ago

I have been in the US since 2000 and I really believe this country needs war to stay together. Without an external enemy people will start fighting each other.

Buldak 8y ago
I have difficulty seeing the Iraq War (or Vietnam, or really any war since WW2) as a source of unity among Americans.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  How about the "Cold war" and the "War on terror"? I agree that the country is looking for a feel good war where they get out as heroes and winners like WW2. The golf wars were planned to be that but didn't work out.
Tempest1981 8y ago
Let’s unify around renewable energy for the world.
- TaylorAlexander 8y ago
  And open source knowledge!
mikeash 8y ago
If you had been here during the 90s, you would have seen us being perfectly fine without a war. Not that the 90s were completely peaceful for us, but we had long stretches without much going on. There was plenty of stupid political infighting, but nothing like the division caused by the invasion of Iraq.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  From a distance it looked like the country lost its mind with the Clinton situation. I think that was also the start of the current extreme partisanship.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    It was far worse with Obama, despite the wars going on.
- bluntfang 8y ago
  huh? crack epidemic. Rodney King. Gang violence. NYC crime wave. etc.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    All (except Rodney King) trending nicely down during that time.
kibwen 8y ago
Perpetual war against impoverished countries isn't bringing the US together--in truth it's one of the biggest issues currently tearing the US public apart.
java_script 8y ago
> Without an external enemy people will start fighting each other. Thank God there's none of that happening.
curioussavage 8y ago
I don’t think that’s true. I’d argue the opposite. Especially given the whole melting pot nature. Whoever the current “enemy” is there always plenty of “them” or people who look like “them” living here which means we get things like internment of Japanese Americans or the harassment of anybody who looks like they could be from the Middle East. There is plenty of patriotism drummed up buts it’s all shallow. Support the troops has more to do with letting your government send them to die wherever they want and less about concern for them.

almost_usual 8y ago

"but don't believe anybody else gained from that: not us Americans as a whole" Engineering Departments get large portions of their revenues through Defense programs. MIT's Lincoln Laboratory made 27% of their revenue (roughly a billion dollars) in 2016. That's one research center. Do you have an engineering degree? Were your facilities nice? Might want to follow the money with that. http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html

TaylorAlexander 8y ago
But is it worth millions dead?
singron 8y ago
Lincoln Labs is an R&D facility dedicated to military technology. It doesn't really make sense to compare their funding composition to facilities without similar purpose.
mtalantikite 8y ago
I think we probably could have figured out a way to give MIT $1 billion/year without going to war for $1.5 trillion. Like maybe not going to war and instead spending that money on research.
ClassyJacket 8y ago
There's nothing in your comment that logically follows that a war is required to give engineering grants. Solution: Give engineering departments money without a war. You would, in fact, have far more money to give if it wasn't spent on war.
- almost_usual 8y ago
  History and the technology we all use today disagrees with you. NASA (really NACA) wouldn’t exist today if the Soviets hadn’t launched Sputnik. Competition and fear spur quite a bit of innovation and public reason for funding research projects. Convincing large amounts of people to give you money without reason doesn’t usually work. War is easy to sell, people can conceptualize the risk easily. I’d argue you’d see more funding and research for preventing climate change if it were as easy to conceptualize risk wise for the general public.