5 ms·
Correct, with exception of arms trade, which finds a way to generate conflict to keep the demand going.
by dmingod666 5y ago
Correct, with exception of arms trade, which finds a way to generate conflict to keep the demand going.
- edgyquant 5y agoI know I shouldn’t respond to comments like this, they’re uninformed and conspiracy ridden so not HN material, but “arms companies” have no need to “generate conflict.” People are fairly efficient at doing that regardless.
- orestarod 5y agoGiven the objectively and publicly known huge part of the US destabilizing other countries overtly and covertly, and similar stories from innumerable other powers throughout history, I would say it takes damn much energy from third parties to generate a conflict between people I would love to see a comment defending US actions, in a way that makes sense, using only its official public narrative. Every damn official point made for justification is full of holes and counter examples.
- hunterb123 5y agoMoney is fungible. When you buy oil from a country, that country can buy arms or materials to manufacture arms with that money.
- bin_bash 5y agoDo they (serious question)? Do you mean like actively lobbying for the US to enter into wars? Or is this more like "I have a tank so I might as well invade".
- dmingod666 5y agoMy running theory is that US does these endless wars for this reason. Tax payer money -> defense companies -> 'political contributions' This is why it's probably fine to not win wars because the war is not being fought to be won.