Do you think that a war must be started for the elite to prosper?

1. 66

   LAURENS WRIGHTposted 10 years ago

   Do you think that a war must be started for the elite to prosper?
   
   Certain people in our society uses war to boost their income during and after war.  Some elite societies pull together to create wars to boost businesses, such as bombs, nuclear power plants and weapons.  Depleted Uranium (DU)  from nuclear reactors are placed in bombs, called bunker-busters, businesses prosper from rebuilding war stricken cities and businesses prosper from providing goods and services to the military forces.

   replyreport
2. 78

   Credence2posted 10 years ago

   I think that the warning received from President Eisehower over 50 years ago is spot on as it applies today. Once the iron curtain fell, we seem to be constantly putting bogey men before the people.
   
   I am cynical, yes, I believe that creating and sustaining conflict is just one of the many ways that the aristocrat who has continues to  have at the expense of those whose purses are not so weighty. In the current climate, I have a fundamental distrust of the wealthy and the extremely afflient. and believe that they will do anything to maintain a status quo that is to their advantage.

   replyreport
3. 83

   AlexK2009posted 10 years ago

   I think it is perfectly possible for the elite to prosper without wars but they lack the imagination, or perhaps the humanity, to think of any other way of doing things, and a large part of the elite make money from war. 
   
   Traditionally though a war has always been a good way to boost the economy, t least temporarily.

   replyreport
4. 73

   d.williamposted 10 years ago

   It is not too difficult to believe this statement to be true. 
   Very few wars were waged to actually protect our country form being overthrown.  But many were started for no other reason than to make obscene profits from waging them. 
   It is easy for the wealthy to promote wars since we all know that those who actually wage those wars will never fight in them.  So they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  Along with the monetary gain comes the lustful satisfaction of being in control over others.

   replyreport
5. 61

   swordsbaneposted 10 years ago

   I don't think they NEED to start wars to boost business.  I DO think that they think it's easier to go that route though.  Not precisely start wars, but to have an "enemy" they can threaten people with if they don't do what they say.
   
   It's a form of extortion.  Normally, people won't stand for the government threatening them directly, but if the government creates an enemy and claims that it is the ENEMY who will do terrible things to them if they don't do something, then they neatly avoid any kind of outrage the people might direct at them.  The Soviets were that enemy for a long time, but when the Soviet Union fell, we started casting about for a new enemy to keep everyone in line.  Now it's a nebulous term called "Terrorism"  Terrorism is better than the Soviets.  It can survive any one nation falling apart.  The terrorists will simply move to a new country and set up shop.  If we don't like that country, we can use terrorism as an excuse to make them do what we want by threatening to go in and get the terrorists without their cooperation.  If it's a nation we DO like, then we can play on their sympathies and get them to do what we want or "the terrorists win"
   
   At home, we invade the personal lives of everyone, we wear down our citizens rights by using words like "security" and phrases like "The War on Terror"  If we don't give up our rights, they say then we are irresponsibly vulnerable to an attack.  The number of deaths from the Trade Tower attacks is inconsequential in the big picture when you put it up against deaths caused by almost any other single source.  However, put those deaths on the same day and in the same place and suddenly it becomes the biggest threat to anyone..... EVER.
   
   I have to ask the question, because no one else seems willing to ask it: When do we get our rights back now that we've given them away?  It is perhaps the most important question right now, and NO ONE is asking it.  If we go by history, the answer is emphatically: Never.... and that is (at least for me) simply unacceptable.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      AlexK2009posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I read a while ago that when "terrorism" ceases to cow the masses there will be a fake extra terrestrial alien threat.  And Sparkster has noted a lot more apparent UFO disclosure this year. I have also seen  a lot on my facebook news feed. Hmm......

      replyreport
6. 59

   Dubesorposted 10 years ago

   Funny, I was considering something the same just weeks ago. I wonder if something in the news got us both thinking about the same thing? Supposedly modern economics takes into account solutions of the past and presents answers to our modern day depression that don't include the bloodshed, but essentially everything else of the past. Keep up a good attitude. Sooner or later all are going to catch on President Obama is only out to make a buck for himself and party rich style and someone else will present the proper solutions to our problems that don't have to involve bloodshed like the past where maybe a king decides its time to start up the economy again and thin out the herd so lets start a war.

   replyreport