War is a Racket...

[FoxtrotOscar]

That war is a racket has been told us by many, but rarely by one of this stature. Though he died in 1940, the highly decorated General Butler (two esteemed Medals of Honor) deserves to be heralded...

[USNAviator]

Dave maybe I've miss read this but I see the article as an economic treatise. That war is a business and those who supply the goods of war become very profitable.

A racket was a term used more in the 20's and 30's as slang for corrupt business practices. I'm sure you've heard of racketeers a synonym for gangsters etc. I think that's what the General is saying, why go to war to pad the bottom line of Dow Chemical or any other corporation? And I think that's still a valid question today

[USNAviator]

Dave lets ask Mike (Foxtrotoscar) where that article came from and who was his audience at the time? Perhaps he dumb down the speech. But isn't the General a rather large fixture in the Corps? Right up there with Chesty and Dan Daly etc?

[USNAviator]

Any event can be summarized in a few hundred words and it still may or may not be a true summarization.


You know I've heard attorneys say just the same thing......:D

[FoxtrotOscar]

That was a speech that he made, yes back in 1933..

Granted, it's difficult to project far into the future, times, equipment and people do change..

I was inclined to lean towards the economic side of the speech..

Kind of like the end of each fiscal year, Unit's in the Military and all other Government entity's can't wait to spend the remainder of their budget's for fear that the next year will be less...

I've watched it and wince..

Everyone is entitled to his/her point of view..

[ssgtt32]

Dave, do you actually believe that big corporations do not make money off of are service? Look at Dick Cheney and Haliburton!

Semper Fi!

[ggyoung]

Dave, do you actually believe that big corporations do not make money off of are service? Look at Dick Cheney and Haliburton!

Semper Fi!

I am not one way or the other But lets look at Vietnam. Pres. Johnson made millions of bucks on that war. So did lady bird johnson. I am not sure on who had interest in which. Colt fire arms and Bell helicopters. Over 58,000 dead.

[Old Marine]

War is a very big money maker for large companies and politicans. Bottom Line.

[Old Marine]

I fully agree with the way Osama was taken out. Saddam should have been taken out the same way. Way too many troops have had to die and are maimed for the rest of their lives because of the way the Saddam fiasco went down.

[USNAviator]

I get carried away on some threads more than on others. I have to learn to state a few things, then get outta there.


No not you Dave!!! I think it comes with your profession. But no matter what Billy says about you're still an Air Force JAG........:D

[USNAviator]

Here's what I end up doing sometimes, Dan


http://gallery.webwhitenoise.com/albums/userpics/beating-a-dead-horse.gif


Yes but you do it so well!!!!

[USNAviator]

That sounds like a compliment but it may not be. :)

And at least I don't wear a tie when I do it.

Let's forget all about the USAF days, shall we? LOL. That was TWELVE years after my USMC days. How quickly they don't forget.


No problem Dave, won't be mentioned again!

[USNAviator]

Yes it will......just kidding, Dan...I can take it...my Marine buddies from the mid-1960s refer to it quite often


Well I know you zoomies are tough. So the attitude adjustments will continue.

[R Landry]

And Ike said....

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.


Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.


This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.


Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.


The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present


and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.