The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[ima]

Rocco, ima is a young idiot who is constantly calling for Israel to be nuked. You can't reason with him, best to ignore him.

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

are you really that colossally stupid?

I'm too stupid to understand what you just said, that good enough?

Canada has virtually no army: fact. The US has more POLICE than Canada has soldiers.
No one's ever attacked Canada except the US, and that was 200 years ago: fact.

 

[toastman]

Well that's funny, I live in Canada and I know several people in the army

 

[Hossfly]

Toast is still delusional I see, I've said about a thousand times that Israel should make peace BEFORE they get nuked. Because there's a real possibility of that happening sometime in the future.
I never asked anyone to pretty please nuke Israel.

As for you roc, Canada has virtually NO army and no one attacks them.
The US army hasn't fought one righteous war since WWII. And has lost them all anyways with their "lethal armed force". We got our ass kicked in Nam, Korea, by Iran (twice), in Lebanon, Somalia, FUCKING SOMALIA!!!! Iraq and Afghanistan. Did I miss any? So why do we need a big army again? So we can simultaneously lose as many wars as possible?

You got an absolute -0- (zero) on your exam, Blivet. I never lost any damn war and the US hasn't either. For example, North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender when the bleeding heart liberals forced a withdrawal from SE Asia. I won't even bother to cite other examples but they all follow the same line. As for WWII, we won that war but our bleeding heart liberals kept us from marching to Moscow to finish the job. Patton kept German Divisions armed so they could fight with us to mop up Russia. You can read all about it in Gen. S.L.A Marshall's official historical books. Now, raus!

Why don't you tell us where you got the idea that "North Vietnam was on the verge of surrender"?
Then explain how many more women and children would've had to die in Vietnam before Kissinger and Rockefeller would've accepted Ho's surrender? How many women and children in your country or family would you have helped murder to effect said surrender? What makes your women and children worth more than those in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan? BTW, the Russians killed a hell of a lot more Nazis than Patton did; if Hitler doesn't invade Russia, Patton come home in a box.

I must have read about it on a Wheaties box. What a maroon.

 

[georgephillip]

Hossie...let's see if you can manage to answer a simple moral question:

Are American lives worth more than Vietnamese lives?

 

[Hossfly]

Hossie...let's see if you can manage to answer a simple moral question:

Are American lives worth more than Vietnamese lives?

Silly question. We were S Vietnam's ally.

Georgie Boy's needle seems to be stuck on the Viet Nam War; and because of that, he is not paying attention to what is actually going on in the world now. Maybe when you are stuck in a tiny apartment, you don't get enough fresh air to clear your brains. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy would probably call this horse a war criminal for helping our military in Korea. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=YIo3ZfA9da0]Sgt Reckless - Korean War Horse Hero - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

No, I don't think so. The difference is in "intent" and the extension of "influence."

Unacceptable risk.

Rocco...why not start with taxing war into extinction?
How about a 100% tax on all war-related profits after the first innocent civilian dies in any war.
(We could also draft the richest 1% and send them into harm's way first)

(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...aren't you conflating "defense" and "war?"
Defending the US homeland hasn't required a war since 1945, at least.
It makes more sense to defend this country from Wall Street and Pentagon corruption, IMHO.
Taxing war into extinction wouldn't prohibit all defense spending, but it would trim the profit margins found in imperial projects like the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows, maybe more of America's richest 1% would have a Pat Tillman experience?

(COMMENT)

Profit is a necessary evil of capitalism and the insistent climb up Malsow's Ladder of Hierarchy. It is part of the human condition set in our society as a species.

Taxation is a means of support for the infrastructure framework supporting the society. While it can have adverse effects in braking aspects of the economy, that is not its intended goal; nor should it be an intended purpose. The maintenance and advancement of the infrastructure should, to the maximum extent possible, be beneficial to the health and prosperity of the culture, and society as a whole. Not a braking mechanism.

The US doesn't have "imperial" aims; that is, the US does not have the intent to establish an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship with other nations through military might --- using the concept of domination and subordination as a foundation. However, it was (for a short time) a political-military hegemony; that is to say, that after WWII, it had a huge "sphere of influence" (hence the concept of a "superpower"); however, the US is on the downward slope on that curve of power, lacking the resources and economic might to maintain the infrastructure that powers scientific and technical advancements that keep a nation strong above all other in commerce and industry.

The US introduction into Afghanistan was originally a move to curb Soviet expansionism. However, after the events of 911, direct intervention was required as a retaliatory measure against the aggression of a non-state actor (al-Qaeda) being sheltered by the Afghan Regime (the Taliban). This differs significantly from the intervention in Iraq which was a hegemonic move to establish an umbrella of influence over the entire Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, caught in the turmoil of multiple destabilizing influences; tackling several several issues at once (only one of which was Palestine).

I was a soldier for a major portion of my life (having retired as a result of a permanent disability). No true soldiers want anyone to have the "Pat Tillman experience;" socio-economics the least of all in the universe of reasons. Again, life as the currency means for another form of taxation, is not a braking mechanism.

BTW: There will always be rich, powerful, and influential in society, above and beyond the less affluent; just as there will always be the righteous and criminal. They are just a few of the facets that shape both America, and the developing nations of the world. If everyone was affluent, then "affluence" would have no meaning, everyone would be in the middle class.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Hossie...let's see if you can manage to answer a simple moral question:

Are American lives worth more than Vietnamese lives?

Silly question. We were S Vietnam's ally.

Georgie Boy's needle seems to be stuck on the Viet Nam War; and because of that, he is not paying attention to what is actually going on in the world now. Maybe when you are stuck in a tiny apartment, you don't get enough fresh air to clear your brains. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy would probably call this horse a war criminal for helping our military in Korea. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=YIo3ZfA9da0]Sgt Reckless - Korean War Horse Hero - YouTube[/ame]

Hossie...what threat did the Koreans present to the US after WWII?
Are you actually arrogant enough to believe they needed our help to reunite their country?

Maybe Sgt. Reckless should've known Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

 

[Hossfly]

Hossie...let's see if you can manage to answer a simple moral question:

Are American lives worth more than Vietnamese lives?

Silly question. We were S Vietnam's ally.

Georgie Boy's needle seems to be stuck on the Viet Nam War; and because of that, he is not paying attention to what is actually going on in the world now. Maybe when you are stuck in a tiny apartment, you don't get enough fresh air to clear your brains. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy would probably call this horse a war criminal for helping our military in Korea. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=YIo3ZfA9da0]Sgt Reckless - Korean War Horse Hero - YouTube[/ame]

Hossie...what threat did the Koreans present to the US after WWII?
Are you actually arrogant enough to believe they needed our help to reunite their country?

Maybe Sgt. Reckless should've known Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

Yessiree, that horse Reckless (or any other horse used by the military of any country for that matter) was certainly braver than Georgie Boy could ever be. If you are now obsessed with the Korean War also, Georgie Boy, why not hike on down to Koreatown since you live so close and ask the South Koreans there if they were grateful for having an international force helping them out against the Communists. When you get back, tell us what they said. See, you can get it from the horse's mouth so to speak and you wouldn't have to run to your beloved Wikipedia. Maybe they will even treat you to a good Korean BBQ meal. Actually I think that Georgie Boy and Kim Jong-II could become the best of friends if only they had the chance to meet each other.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Well that's funny, I live in Canada and I know several people in the army

Can you read, she said virtually no army? I thought you were about 12, have you not learned what the word virtually means in school yet?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Silly question. We were S Vietnam's ally.

Georgie Boy's needle seems to be stuck on the Viet Nam War; and because of that, he is not paying attention to what is actually going on in the world now. Maybe when you are stuck in a tiny apartment, you don't get enough fresh air to clear your brains. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy would probably call this horse a war criminal for helping our military in Korea. Sgt Reckless - Korean War Horse Hero - YouTube

Hossie...what threat did the Koreans present to the US after WWII?
Are you actually arrogant enough to believe they needed our help to reunite their country?

Maybe Sgt. Reckless should've known Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

Yessiree, that horse Reckless (or any other horse used by the military of any country for that matter) was certainly braver than Georgie Boy could ever be. If you are now obsessed with the Korean War also, Georgie Boy, why not hike on down to Koreatown since you live so close and ask the South Koreans there if they were grateful for having an international force helping them out against the Communists. When you get back, tell us what they said. See, you can get it from the horse's mouth so to speak and you wouldn't have to run to your beloved Wikipedia. Maybe they will even treat you to a good Korean BBQ meal. Actually I think that Georgie Boy and Kim Jong-II could become the best of friends if only they had the chance to meet each other.

The fact they are here and not Korea tells us all we need to know about the fabulous conditions in Korea.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

No, I don't think so. The difference is in "intent" and the extension of "influence."

Unacceptable risk.


(COMMENT)

All you do in this case is make it impractical and unaffordable to maintain a defense program. And while that might suit your agenda for the US, it would merely transfer the industry off-shore, prevent the US from maintaining a standing force, and raise its vulnerability and susceptibility to external aggression, coercion and political intimidation.

In effect such a policy would make it impractical "provide for the common defence" under The Constitution.

No other nation in the world is going to unilaterally disarm.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...aren't you conflating "defense" and "war?"
Defending the US homeland hasn't required a war since 1945, at least.
It makes more sense to defend this country from Wall Street and Pentagon corruption, IMHO.
Taxing war into extinction wouldn't prohibit all defense spending, but it would trim the profit margins found in imperial projects like the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows, maybe more of America's richest 1% would have a Pat Tillman experience?

(COMMENT)

Profit is a necessary evil of capitalism and the insistent climb up Malsow's Ladder of Hierarchy. It is part of the human condition set in our society as a species.

Taxation is a means of support for the infrastructure framework supporting the society. While it can have adverse effects in braking aspects of the economy, that is not its intended goal; nor should it be an intended purpose. The maintenance and advancement of the infrastructure should, to the maximum extent possible, be beneficial to the health and prosperity of the culture, and society as a whole. Not a braking mechanism.

The US doesn't have "imperial" aims; that is, the US does not have the intent to establish an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship with other nations through military might --- using the concept of domination and subordination as a foundation. However, it was (for a short time) a political-military hegemony; that is to say, that after WWII, it had a huge "sphere of influence" (hence the concept of a "superpower"); however, the US is on the downward slope on that curve of power, lacking the resources and economic might to maintain the infrastructure that powers scientific and technical advancements that keep a nation strong above all other in commerce and industry.

The US introduction into Afghanistan was originally a move to curb Soviet expansionism. However, after the events of 911, direct intervention was required as a retaliatory measure against the aggression of a non-state actor (al-Qaeda) being sheltered by the Afghan Regime (the Taliban). This differs significantly from the intervention in Iraq which was a hegemonic move to establish an umbrella of influence over the entire Middle East/Persian Gulf Region, caught in the turmoil of multiple destabilizing influences; tackling several several issues at once (only one of which was Palestine).

I was a soldier for a major portion of my life (having retired as a result of a permanent disability). No true soldiers want anyone to have the "Pat Tillman experience;" socio-economics the least of all in the universe of reasons. Again, life as the currency means for another form of taxation, is not a braking mechanism.

BTW: There will always be rich, powerful, and influential in society, above and beyond the less affluent; just as there will always be the righteous and criminal. They are just a few of the facets that shape both America, and the developing nations of the world. If everyone was affluent, then "affluence" would have no meaning, everyone would be in the middle class.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco...while the rich may or may not be always among us, every government yet devised has existed to serve their interests first and foremost. From Adam Smith's "principle architects of society" (the "merchants and manufacturers who make certain their interests are most peculiarly attended to") to today's global corporate elite, every government serves the economic interests of those who profit most from war and the private creation of money at interest.

The solution seems fairly straightforward: erect a wall between private wealth and its influence on government, or tax the rich into extinction before their innate dependence on war exterminates this specie.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[georgephillip]

Silly question. We were S Vietnam's ally.

Georgie Boy's needle seems to be stuck on the Viet Nam War; and because of that, he is not paying attention to what is actually going on in the world now. Maybe when you are stuck in a tiny apartment, you don't get enough fresh air to clear your brains. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy would probably call this horse a war criminal for helping our military in Korea. Sgt Reckless - Korean War Horse Hero - YouTube

Hossie...what threat did the Koreans present to the US after WWII?
Are you actually arrogant enough to believe they needed our help to reunite their country?

Maybe Sgt. Reckless should've known Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

Yessiree, that horse Reckless (or any other horse used by the military of any country for that matter) was certainly braver than Georgie Boy could ever be. If you are now obsessed with the Korean War also, Georgie Boy, why not hike on down to Koreatown since you live so close and ask the South Koreans there if they were grateful for having an international force helping them out against the Communists. When you get back, tell us what they said. See, you can get it from the horse's mouth so to speak and you wouldn't have to run to your beloved Wikipedia. Maybe they will even treat you to a good Korean BBQ meal. Actually I think that Georgie Boy and Kim Jong-II could become the best of friends if only they had the chance to meet each other.

"Yuh Woon-Hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.' He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

Yuh felt it was fundamentally undemocratic for Stalin and FDR to determine the rate of Korean reunification in 1945. What about you? (ask Reckless if still brainwashed)

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

The idea sounds both noble in its purpose, and sound in its suggested implementation. But it is neither.

Rocco...while the rich may or may not be always among us, every government yet devised has existed to serve their interests first and foremost. From Adam Smith's "principle architects of society" (the "merchants and manufacturers who make certain their interests are most peculiarly attended to") to today's global corporate elite, every government serves the economic interests of those who profit most from war and the private creation of money at interest.

(COMMENT)

"Maximize the Wealth of the Shareholder!" That is what business does. That is what the foundation of the strategy is based upon. That is how they make money. War is just one of many economic environments that sets the conditions for profit. The Goldman Sach raping of its clients in the housing market was just one example; but much different from the defense industry. Yet it was the burst of the housing market in America that hurt the US more than the cost of war. But the two environment together, were even more devastating.

The solution seems fairly straightforward: erect a wall between private wealth and its influence on government, or tax the rich into extinction before their innate dependence on war exterminates this specie.

(COMMENT)

This doesn't work. It retards the R&D effort the spurs innovation and development in the defensive industry.

Again, if you tax "into extinction" the driving force behind the defense industry, you reduce the very environment that makes an armed force "invincible in war."

No! While I have shared some of the exact same concerns you have with an overly influential defense industry over Congress, I also realized that there is a need for profit.

(CONCEPT)

War is an outcome of failed diplomacy and the corrupt values of the Congressional and Executive leadership. The profitability of war is merely the defense and banking industries taking advantage of this leadership deficit. It is all about working in harmony to maximize wealth and accumulate power and influence. War doesn't have to be the environmental factor, but it is the easiest to kick-off. And with the military force that is invisible, it is the least risky. But if you shift the profitability away from and industry that creates the invincible force, you increase risk and induce an unnecessary risk factor that might cause a war to be lost.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco..."Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets."
Karl Marx, 1867.

Abolishing war today may be as unrealistic as abolishing slavery was 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's any less necessary. The "corrupt values of (our) Congressional and Executive leadership" serve to enhance the private fortunes of those doing the corruption. The defense and banking industries will continue to compel politicians of both major parties to sustain the "Long War," and the eventual result will be a war without any winners.

 

[Redbone]

Actually the greatest threat to world peace (almost by definition) would be the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. Only one among 194 countries has maimed, murdered, displaced, and incarcerated millions of innocent Muslims on the opposite side of the planet from its homeland in the last two decades.

The claim that Israel exists in a "tinderbox known as the Mideast" stems directly from carving a Jewish homeland out of Arab real estate. When 650,000 Jews inflicted Greater Israel on twice as many Arabs in 1948, the "peaceful" majority didn't require a "one-eyed shortcut" to perceive its future.

Chomsky is smart enough and honest enough to see and admit this.
You're not.

You're quite the apologist for those poor, oppressed arabs who had to endure "all them-there Jooooos" being imposed upon "moslem lands".

What you're not going to address, of course, was the interruption of the arab/moslem pogrom taking place that is ridding infidels from the islamist Middle East.

I always find claims such as yours to be hypocritical. On the issue of human rights, Israel has a far better record than any moslem Arab state. It's a simple matter to compare the realities of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian and anti-non-Muslim oppression within arab / moslem nations vs. Israel and Western nations simply because of the success of ethnic and minority religious cleansing within the moslem / Arab world. While Israeli Arabs have, per capita, one of the highest living standards among all moslems worldwide and their population in Israel is growing, the Jews (and Christians) of the moslem world are comparatively poor, marginalized, and will die out within the next half-century. The moslem majority nations will ultimately achieve what Hitler never did, their nations will be Judenrein (rid of Jews).

Currently there are about an equal number of Jews and Arabs living between the Jordan and the sea.
Jews seem to prefer keeping a boot firmly planted on the Arab majority's neck.
Is that another example of Israel's commitment to human rights or just another kosher result of "creeping annexation" and humanitarian transfer policies?
Maybe two wrongs make a right on your block but not on mine.

The right policy when the owners of those necks are out to murder all Jews. That you cleverly and so conveniently forget that reveals your lack of integrity and willingness to deceive those you think to be uninformed.

 

[georgephillip]

You're quite the apologist for those poor, oppressed arabs who had to endure "all them-there Jooooos" being imposed upon "moslem lands".

What you're not going to address, of course, was the interruption of the arab/moslem pogrom taking place that is ridding infidels from the islamist Middle East.

I always find claims such as yours to be hypocritical. On the issue of human rights, Israel has a far better record than any moslem Arab state. It's a simple matter to compare the realities of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian and anti-non-Muslim oppression within arab / moslem nations vs. Israel and Western nations simply because of the success of ethnic and minority religious cleansing within the moslem / Arab world. While Israeli Arabs have, per capita, one of the highest living standards among all moslems worldwide and their population in Israel is growing, the Jews (and Christians) of the moslem world are comparatively poor, marginalized, and will die out within the next half-century. The moslem majority nations will ultimately achieve what Hitler never did, their nations will be Judenrein (rid of Jews).

Currently there are about an equal number of Jews and Arabs living between the Jordan and the sea.
Jews seem to prefer keeping a boot firmly planted on the Arab majority's neck.
Is that another example of Israel's commitment to human rights or just another kosher result of "creeping annexation" and humanitarian transfer policies?
Maybe two wrongs make a right on your block but not on mine.

The right policy when the owners of those necks are out to murder all Jews. That you cleverly and so conveniently forget that reveals your lack of integrity and willingness to deceive those you think to be uninformed.

"Palestinian farmers face the brunt of Israel’s land confiscations, demolitions and water theft. Farmers that still have access to land and water face systematically implemented restrictions and violence.

"Israeli agricultural export companies such as Mehadrin and Hadiklaim are among the primary beneficiaries of the destruction of Palestinian agriculture, operating inside and exporting produce from illegal settlements using stolen Palestinian land and water and profiting from the siege on Gaza."

What percentage of Arabs do you imagine want "to murder all Jews?"

Those who apologize for Jews stealing Arab land and water often confuse integrity with deception.

Briefing: Farming Injustice ? International trade with Israeli agricultural companies and the destruction of Palestinian farming | BDSmovement.net

 

[Redbone]

Currently there are about an equal number of Jews and Arabs living between the Jordan and the sea.
Jews seem to prefer keeping a boot firmly planted on the Arab majority's neck.
Is that another example of Israel's commitment to human rights or just another kosher result of "creeping annexation" and humanitarian transfer policies?
Maybe two wrongs make a right on your block but not on mine.

The right policy when the owners of those necks are out to murder all Jews. That you cleverly and so conveniently forget that reveals your lack of integrity and willingness to deceive those you think to be uninformed.

"Palestinian farmers face the brunt of Israel’s land confiscations, demolitions and water theft. Farmers that still have access to land and water face systematically implemented restrictions and violence.

"Israeli agricultural export companies such as Mehadrin and Hadiklaim are among the primary beneficiaries of the destruction of Palestinian agriculture, operating inside and exporting produce from illegal settlements using stolen Palestinian land and water and profiting from the siege on Gaza."

What percentage of Arabs do you imagine want "to murder all Jews?"

Those who apologize for Jews stealing Arab land and water often confuse integrity with deception.

Briefing: Farming Injustice ? International trade with Israeli agricultural companies and the destruction of Palestinian farming | BDSmovement.net

How many you ask. Enough to make the threat a serious one. How many would it take if it were you being so threatened?

 

[georgephillip]

"혈농어수 - 피는 물보다 짙다 (血濃於&#27700: Blood is thicker than water [1]
[edit]Genealogy.

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you confused about why people post on political message boards?

 

[Hossfly]

"혈농어수 - 피는 물보다 짙다 (血濃於&#27700: Blood is thicker than water [1]
[edit]Genealogy.

Yuh Woon-Hyung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you confused about why people post on political message boards?

Of course I know why they post. They want to discuss what is happening in the world of today, or if they don't have any spare change to even go to Macdonald's for a cup of coffee, they keep on babbling about wars which happened way in the past. I guess Georgie Boy is not interested in what the South Koreans living not far from him in Koreatown have to say about the war. He would rather bring up long-ago wars ad nauseam on this message board, or course using his beloved Wikipedia once again. Maybe he is afraid what the South Korean living in America might tell him.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

The idea sounds both noble in its purpose, and sound in its suggested implementation. But it is neither.

Rocco...while the rich may or may not be always among us, every government yet devised has existed to serve their interests first and foremost. From Adam Smith's "principle architects of society" (the "merchants and manufacturers who make certain their interests are most peculiarly attended to") to today's global corporate elite, every government serves the economic interests of those who profit most from war and the private creation of money at interest.

(COMMENT)

"Maximize the Wealth of the Shareholder!" That is what business does. That is what the foundation of the strategy is based upon. That is how they make money. War is just one of many economic environments that sets the conditions for profit. The Goldman Sach raping of its clients in the housing market was just one example; but much different from the defense industry. Yet it was the burst of the housing market in America that hurt the US more than the cost of war. But the two environment together, were even more devastating.

The solution seems fairly straightforward: erect a wall between private wealth and its influence on government, or tax the rich into extinction before their innate dependence on war exterminates this specie.

(COMMENT)

This doesn't work. It retards the R&D effort the spurs innovation and development in the defensive industry.

Again, if you tax "into extinction" the driving force behind the defense industry, you reduce the very environment that makes an armed force "invincible in war."

No! While I have shared some of the exact same concerns you have with an overly influential defense industry over Congress, I also realized that there is a need for profit.

(CONCEPT)

War is an outcome of failed diplomacy and the corrupt values of the Congressional and Executive leadership. The profitability of war is merely the defense and banking industries taking advantage of this leadership deficit. It is all about working in harmony to maximize wealth and accumulate power and influence. War doesn't have to be the environmental factor, but it is the easiest to kick-off. And with the military force that is invisible, it is the least risky. But if you shift the profitability away from and industry that creates the invincible force, you increase risk and induce an unnecessary risk factor that might cause a war to be lost.

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem is that profits have been the reason for war more than defense.

Never-ending war for never ending profit.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY]Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - YouTube[/ame]