A large portion of the economy of the US is weapons manufacturing, we are one of the greatest arms dealers in the world, now if this is so does it actually make sense to try and sustain peace around the world. Wouldn't it be more profitable if there were conflicts all over the world in order to keep the profits for the defense industries up? Now one must make sure that such no's no's such as nuclear weapons do not get mixed up in the issue but otherwise such a policy would be quite applicable and profitable for the country as a whole. Oh sure such a policy would have to be quiet, because everyone wants peace right, so on the surface the US would appear to actually want to promulgate peace, but look at the actual results, as Deep throat said follow the money, where do the profits go and into whos pockets and the subsequent change in policy.
At the same time instability in other countries serve other purposes other then benefiting the defense industry, for those countries which need cheap labor or cheap resources, or for those that might be getting to uppity for US's or their corportation's own good, then wouldn't it make sense to try and fan the flames so to speak of conflict in that country.
In any case, any thoughts fellow members, am I just speaking out of my bum or is it a valid thought?
Is it in the US's best interest to maintain an atmosphere of peace?
-
InfiniteNature
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 8:51 am
- Location: In the infinite abyss, between dreams and nightmar
- Contact:
Is it in the US's best interest to maintain an atmosphere of peace?
"In Germany, they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me--but by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Pastor Martin Neimoller
Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.
Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
Pastor Martin Neimoller
Infinity is a fathomless gulf, into which all things vanish.
Marcus Aurelius (121-180) Roman Emperor and Philosopher
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
Frodo has failed, Bush has the ring.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
It is in the United States's best interests to maintain stability throughout the world. In the short term, wars make money, but they also chew up the natural resources and liquid assets of the countries involved and ultimately are more of a drain on resources than a boon. Wars are also disruptive to trade and international relations and the US generally doesn't want to encourage wars, even if it means selling some extra weapons.
The US also isn't really interested in making money off of bush wars because they're generally small change affairs. For instance, the warlords in Rwanda want assualt rifles, grenades and jeeps; they don't need the kind of weapons that have high profit margins like tanks and ships. For the most part, we leave that up to countries like China and Switzerland.
The major buyers of American weapons are Isreal, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They buy stripped-down versions of the F-16 fighter, AH-64 attack helicopter, M1 main battle tank, Patriot missile defense system and old Vietnam-era ships. There was also a big bruhaha a couple of years ago about Japan buying some destroyers with the AEGIS radar system on them. Right now, foreign orders are what's keeping the M1 Abrams factory in Ohio open because the US military has its fill and is busy refitting the ones it has with the latest hardware and software improvements.
There are a fair number of defense contractors who are hurting for money, and are turning to US allies for profits. However, it is not in our interests to arm everyone in the world or to make sure that everyone has the best and most espensive weapon systems on the planet. For one thing, you never know when our friend may become our enemy and American soldiers may get strafed by a F-15 or come under fire from a Paladin mobile gun (remember that at different points in time, we have armed both the Iraqis and the Iranians).
The main interest of US foreign policy right now is to 1) maintain stability throughout the world (particularly the middle east, but with the exception of Iraq) and 2) to ensure that no one can challenge US hegemony. There's more money to be made dealing with other countries than by putting a gun in everyone's hand, and we'd much rather exploit people without having to rebuild their nation's infrastructure first.
The US also isn't really interested in making money off of bush wars because they're generally small change affairs. For instance, the warlords in Rwanda want assualt rifles, grenades and jeeps; they don't need the kind of weapons that have high profit margins like tanks and ships. For the most part, we leave that up to countries like China and Switzerland.
The major buyers of American weapons are Isreal, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They buy stripped-down versions of the F-16 fighter, AH-64 attack helicopter, M1 main battle tank, Patriot missile defense system and old Vietnam-era ships. There was also a big bruhaha a couple of years ago about Japan buying some destroyers with the AEGIS radar system on them. Right now, foreign orders are what's keeping the M1 Abrams factory in Ohio open because the US military has its fill and is busy refitting the ones it has with the latest hardware and software improvements.
There are a fair number of defense contractors who are hurting for money, and are turning to US allies for profits. However, it is not in our interests to arm everyone in the world or to make sure that everyone has the best and most espensive weapon systems on the planet. For one thing, you never know when our friend may become our enemy and American soldiers may get strafed by a F-15 or come under fire from a Paladin mobile gun (remember that at different points in time, we have armed both the Iraqis and the Iranians).
The main interest of US foreign policy right now is to 1) maintain stability throughout the world (particularly the middle east, but with the exception of Iraq) and 2) to ensure that no one can challenge US hegemony. There's more money to be made dealing with other countries than by putting a gun in everyone's hand, and we'd much rather exploit people without having to rebuild their nation's infrastructure first.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.