Syria, War, Money, Arms, and Power
Go ahead. Blow it up. We're going to do it. It's what we do. It's what we've always done. There's money to be made, and power to be gained by the already powerful and wealthy. Our opinion of the havoc it will create for everyone else in the world is irrelevant.
Richard Swan responded to this through FaceBook. I can't copy and paste, so I'm going to have to type his response, and my re-response here. Any typos that may occur will more than likely be my fault, but I'm going to be true to what he wrote.
"I find myself incredulously in agreement with the voices calling for restraint-assuredly for different reasons-but, I am curious as to who you think will profit from this (aside from the obvious meme that we are going to war to boost Rayththeon's stock price which I find to be a puerile argument-someone has to replace the weapons that are used)."
Lobbyists, "consultants", ancillary providers, oil and energy speculators, mercenaries, armament manufacturers, politicians. The average person on the street in this country isn't concerned about a civil war in a small country so far away except as much as his ire can be falsely drummed up. We can go back to almost any conflict this country has been involved in, and overwhelmingly there's a few wealthy people making bank on it. Whether we went to war for good reasons or not.
Halliburton, Exxon, Xe (remember Xe, the former Blackadder...sorry, Blackwater, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto?), and on and on. Do you think any of these people are going to lend any credence to any rational reason to NOT go to war?
Just the uncertainty is good for oil interests and speculators who use any tensions as an excuse to raise oil prices. You watch. We bomb Syria, and they will bring back $4+ a gallon gas. And they'll make us happy later when they drop the price to $3.87. And Exxon will show record profits again.
All of these people will profit, and we won't even need to put boots on the ground. Just the uncertainty and tension. They are enough for them to rationalize further spending. At the expense of world peace, and at the expense of any other social good this country could do for its people and abroad.
Simply look at our military budget compared to the rest of the world. For that matter, look at the outlay for the DoD as compared to the State Department and the diplomatic corps.
_________________________________
Howard Zinn on Manifest Destiny, the first Mexican War, and how we took California:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntak8.html
"the politically sensitive Whig minority could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required."
Notice how we always "support the troops", but never protect them by not going to war?
Richard Swan responded to this through FaceBook. I can't copy and paste, so I'm going to have to type his response, and my re-response here. Any typos that may occur will more than likely be my fault, but I'm going to be true to what he wrote.
"I find myself incredulously in agreement with the voices calling for restraint-assuredly for different reasons-but, I am curious as to who you think will profit from this (aside from the obvious meme that we are going to war to boost Rayththeon's stock price which I find to be a puerile argument-someone has to replace the weapons that are used)."
Lobbyists, "consultants", ancillary providers, oil and energy speculators, mercenaries, armament manufacturers, politicians. The average person on the street in this country isn't concerned about a civil war in a small country so far away except as much as his ire can be falsely drummed up. We can go back to almost any conflict this country has been involved in, and overwhelmingly there's a few wealthy people making bank on it. Whether we went to war for good reasons or not.
Halliburton, Exxon, Xe (remember Xe, the former Blackadder...sorry, Blackwater, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto?), and on and on. Do you think any of these people are going to lend any credence to any rational reason to NOT go to war?
Just the uncertainty is good for oil interests and speculators who use any tensions as an excuse to raise oil prices. You watch. We bomb Syria, and they will bring back $4+ a gallon gas. And they'll make us happy later when they drop the price to $3.87. And Exxon will show record profits again.
All of these people will profit, and we won't even need to put boots on the ground. Just the uncertainty and tension. They are enough for them to rationalize further spending. At the expense of world peace, and at the expense of any other social good this country could do for its people and abroad.
Simply look at our military budget compared to the rest of the world. For that matter, look at the outlay for the DoD as compared to the State Department and the diplomatic corps.
_________________________________
Howard Zinn on Manifest Destiny, the first Mexican War, and how we took California:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinntak8.html
"the politically sensitive Whig minority could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required."
Notice how we always "support the troops", but never protect them by not going to war?
Comments