Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Discussion of current events
User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Europe's imports of US LNG are political, not economic.

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Europe's imports of US LNG are political, not economic.

Post by cassowary » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:37 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:36 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:25 am


There is no evidence that the weapons merchants control government. This silly idea springs from Marxist roots.
So Eisenhower was a Marxist...
Obviously the weapons merchants did not control him.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re:just in case?

Post by neverfail » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Re:just in case?

Post by cassowary » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:28 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.
That much I can agree. But that does not mean they control the government or even start wars as some of the left are saying.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 3974
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Re:just in case?

Post by neverfail » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:44 pm

cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:28 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.
That much I can agree. But that does not mean they control the government or even start wars as some of the left are saying.
I agree with you again. It looks to me more like a "catch 22" situation. If they let their the arms production industry die them the USA loses its might and no US government wants to suffer the political embarrassment of suffering the demise of their country as the global superpower. So they keep feeding their arms industry with public money.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Re:just in case?

Post by Sertorio » Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:50 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:44 pm
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:28 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.
That much I can agree. But that does not mean they control the government or even start wars as some of the left are saying.
I agree with you again. It looks to me more like a "catch 22" situation. If they let their the arms production industry die them the USA loses its might and no US government wants to suffer the political embarrassment of suffering the demise of their country as the global superpower. So they keep feeding their arms industry with public money.
Russia and China do not seem to have that problem. Maybe the US should also mostly nationalize its arms production. We would then have fewer wars to keep those firms afloat...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3206
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Trump's Revenge: US floods EU with oil

Post by cassowary » Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:42 am

No need for war to keep them afloat. Ammunition has a use by date. Weapons systems get obsolete and need to be replaced. Those in use get frequent upgrades. Plenty of work without war.
The Imp :D

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Re:just in case?

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:58 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:44 pm
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:28 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:45 pm

Yes, in fact that's exactly what I'm talking about, since individuals who benefit from military spending control political power.
Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.
That much I can agree. But that does not mean they control the government or even start wars as some of the left are saying.
I agree with you again. It looks to me more like a "catch 22" situation. If they let their the arms production industry die them the USA loses its might and no US government wants to suffer the political embarrassment of suffering the demise of their country as the global superpower. So they keep feeding their arms industry with public money.
Something like that, although the question is which is the cart and which is the horse.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Re:just in case?

Post by SteveFoerster » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:04 am

Sertorio wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:50 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:44 pm
cassowary wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:28 pm
neverfail wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:57 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:18 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:40 pm


Convince me by identifying the connecting link!
As Sertorio rightfully pointed out, this was Eisenhower's warning, not some Alex Jones type figure. Do you think things have gotten better since the '60s?
Thanks fellows.

Seems to me that the USA is caught up in a conundrum re. the (so called) military-industrial complex that is like this:

The complex of private enterprise arms manufacturing no doubt built up to gargantuan size during the Second World War emergency. The dilemma is that as the arms manufacturers depend on government contracts to remain in business (what other major customer do they have?), if the contracts were no longer forthcoming most of those firms would probably go out of business. The relevant skills and know how employed would be lost along with the productive technology. So rather than lose the basis for America's military might (just in case it is needed in a future conflict) a string of US governments have kept on feeding these firms contracts so that they will remain in business.
That much I can agree. But that does not mean they control the government or even start wars as some of the left are saying.
I agree with you again. It looks to me more like a "catch 22" situation. If they let their the arms production industry die them the USA loses its might and no US government wants to suffer the political embarrassment of suffering the demise of their country as the global superpower. So they keep feeding their arms industry with public money.
Russia and China do not seem to have that problem. Maybe the US should also mostly nationalize its arms production. We would then have fewer wars to keep those firms afloat...
Are you suggesting that Russian and Chinese munitions don't see use in the field? For the Russians that's their #2 export behind petroleum!
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply