Friday, February 19, 2010

Military Industrial Complex

Angry Bear wrote a wonderful post about the real puppet masters.

The impact of militarization is huge, and the long-term wars we are engaged in currently, and their high costs, surely impact our economy. Surely the military-industrial complex and its demands on the tax system (and its potential threats to our democratic institutions) are viable topics at ataxingmatter, as part of the discussion of tax policy and institutional sustainability.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. War crimes again? Give me a break. These people really need to take a reality break.

    War crimes are a dog and pony show. You cannot have a war crime unless you are defeated in a war.

  2. Those mindless, quixotic teabaggers either never heard of the MIC or are too stupid to understand the open sewer drain pipe it has connected directly to the U.S. Treasury.

  3. another scarce soul who has seen the connection to the decaying living conditions in America to the out of control military spending. Something I have a little bit of experience in.

  4. "War crimes are a dog and pony show. You cannot have a war crime unless you are defeated in a war."

    Gee, I musta missed the "/s" denoting that the comment was sarcasm. Oh, it wasn't? You mean you're really that much of an idiot?

  5. Demo, why must you always start the name calling when you have no real comeback? You could just be quiet instead.

    War crimes trials are a dog and pony show because of two reasons. First, only a loser can be charged and found guilty of a war crime. Winners and otherwise non-losers cannot. And second, usually no laws were actually broken and instead the "crimes" are levied by the winners of the conflict after the fact.

    Look at the most famous example, WWII. Nazi's were charged with war crimes for murdering 6 million Jews. As despicable and evil as that was and as deserving of their fate as anyone could be, they were not guilty of any codified criminal act. In fact, their government had signed a law ordering and making it a legal act. No one will argue that they were evil and should be held accountable for their actions but the trial was for show.

    Next we have Stalin. He killed 20 million civilians, most his own people and 6 million of them poor slavic Jews. Was he a "war criminal"? Of course not--he wasn't charged or arrested. Evil, yes, criminal, no. Why? Because he did not lose. In fact, he ended the conflict with the largest army on the planet.

    You cannot be charged, arrested and tried for "war crimes" unless you lose a war. Since the U.S. did not lose a war, our leaders cannot be charged or arrested for "war crimes". These "idiots" should get over it.

  6. FWM, You often say it's only the losers who can be charged with war crimes, but other than those cases you cite, is there any reason for this? Theoretically, couldn't Bush and Co. be charged with having deceived the American public in order to enter into an unjust war?

  7. Principe, I had you in mind when I posted this. Angry Bear is a big league blogger who is saying in this post what you've been saying for years.

  8. MikeB,

    Aside from the war crime tribunals in Nuremburg and the 900 or so Japanese executed for war crimes in Asia, there have been relatively few actual war crimes trials, the most famous recently being that of Saddam Hussein.

    Of course there have been some left wingers and communists that believe that the United States should have been charged with war crimes over the use of atomic weapons but that is just silly--we were the only ones with nuclear arms and winners cannot be charged.

    Had Germany been able to negotiate a conditional surrender, probably the only trials would have been brought from within.

    Non losers of wars cannot be charged because war crimes, by definition, are only decided by the winners of a war and after the fact. That is why Stalin could not be charged. How can you force anyone that has 60 divisions of soldiers at their ready to surrender for a trial by a court that has no jurisdiction over them? You have to defeat them first and force the power of that court over them.

    As far as Bush and Cheney, the United States did not lose so a war crime dog and pony show could not be forced upon us by the victors. Therefore, Bush and Cheney could only be tried by the United States within the United States as they are not subject to any foreign court. Since there are no "war crime" statutes for them to break under United States law, they would have to be charged with something else if anything ever.

    That is why I laugh at the nutjobs that yell "war crimes" for any American leader. They are just being silly.