We Should Rally Behind the MIC

a reply to: JinMI

so basically you can't grow beyond your own limitation, and become a better human? deducing human nature from your own shortcomings is a very common fallacy.

Human nature is a lazy excuse for those not interested in becoming better humans...

a reply to: Terpene

so basically you can't grow beyond your own limitation, and become a better human? deducing human nature from your own shortcomings is a very common fallacy.

Yea?

Tell that to the loved ones who lost someone to senseless violence.

Everyone's a pacifist until they get punched in the mouth.

/shrug

a reply to: JinMI

I tell that everyone that invokes human nature as a form of argument to justify sick people's behaviors...

/shrug

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: JinMI

I tell that everyone that invokes human nature as a form of argument to justify sick people's behaviors...

/shrug

So you know that sick people exist.

And your solution is....well what exactly?

a reply to: JinMI

Give them guns, obviously

a reply to: JinMI

So you know that sick people exist. And your solution is....well what exactly?

Take things one step at a time. You know crazy is out there, but until it comes knocking on your door do what you have to too survive. Defend yourself and others if the heat is on, till then chill out.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: JinMI

I tell that everyone that invokes human nature as a form of argument to justify sick people's behaviors...

/shrug

So you know that sick people exist.

And your solution is....well what exactly?

Right. Let's pretend you offered a solution with suggesting we back the main polluters on the planet for mere financial and economic reasons.

Do you need some more rope? What happened to you?

a reply to: Insurrectile

What happened to you?

Sounds like they are getting a clearer picture in how this world works. I have considered and explored a similar angle before. Better chance of fixing the machine if you are a part of it.

With the nature of this meat grinder, it takes something special to rise above the pack.

a reply to: JinMI
I guarantee this would be a net negative globally. The moral implications alone would eroded the foundation this country was built on, not expand upon it.

Up until WWI America's primary exports have been humanitarian aid and a moral superiority very few nations have ever achieved. I guarantee our founding fathers would take issue if we perverted our 2nd amendment to justify arming the world population for profit.

How would we ensure that the weapons don't congregate around the most violent corrupt individuals like they have done throughout recorded history?

I can't see how this is any different than what we are already doing just on a much much larger scale with even less public oversight. The money that goes through congress to the military industrial complex, and into private corporations like Raytheon was approved by our elected officials. Unless they make all Americans shareholders in weapons manufacturers or impose some sort of communist style of government this won't ever happen.

I do agree an armed population is a polite population. But it must be of it's own volition. We can't just give every able body on the planet a gun then hope that the worst elements of human nature won't prevail like they always do.

originally posted by: Insurrectile

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: JinMI

I tell that everyone that invokes human nature as a form of argument to justify sick people's behaviors...

/shrug

So you know that sick people exist.

And your solution is....well what exactly?

Right. Let's pretend you offered a solution with suggesting we back the main polluters on the planet for mere financial and economic reasons.

Do you need some more rope? What happened to you?

Hah!

Clearly you're not caught up on the thread.

I forgive you.

a reply to: JAY1980

I guarantee this would be a net negative globally. The moral implications alone would eroded the foundation this country was built on, not expand upon it.

Moral implications? Does that mean that the US has high moral standards currently?

I would say absolutely not.

Up until WWI America's primary exports have been humanitarian aid and a moral superiority very few nations have ever achieved. I guarantee our founding fathers would take issue if we perverted our 2nd amendment to justify arming the world population for profit.

Disagree. I think our founding fathers would take issue that we were arming other governments to oppress their people...

How would we ensure that the weapons don't congregate around the most violent corrupt individuals like they have done throughout recorded history?

That's happening now already. If you're talking about them going right to the black market via other nations, would that really be our problem?

I can't see how this is any different than what we are already doing just on a much much larger scale with even less public oversight. The money that goes through congress to the military industrial complex, and into private corporations like Raytheon was approved by our elected officials. Unless they make all Americans shareholders in weapons manufacturers or impose some sort of communist style of government this won't ever happen.

Exactly. Except the communism. I'm not advocating for a takeover of the means but possibly an expansion of the means to more American businesses.

I do agree an armed population is a polite population. But it must be of it's own volition. We can't just give every able body on the planet a gun then hope that the worst elements of human nature won't prevail like they always do.

You would are in good company in your assertion. The gun grabbers over on the left feel the same way about you.

a reply to: JinMI
You quote your 2nd amendment, but, but, that has to do with the USA NOT the rest of the world. It is really about time America took it's claws out of the rest of the world and looked to itself. Point in question:- How does a thriving MIC help the USA? Answer, it doesn't. Oh it helps the shareholders, yeah, but where is the help for ordinary Americans with the MIC earning billions on the backs of the Ukrainians. Are they giving help to the mounting poverty and homelessness in the US. ANSWER NO.
And it aint the governments of Africa keeping their people in poverty it's the US and the other western nations. But that's coming to an end.
But keep making weapons and exporting them and sooner or later those weapons will come home and not in friendly hands.

a reply to: crayzeed

How does a thriving MIC help the USA? Answer, it doesn't.

There are some security benefits.

How could a thriving MIC help the USA? Simple. By allowing wider ranging arms contracts and arms sales to private foreign folks.

But keep making weapons and exporting them and sooner or later those weapons will come home and not in friendly hands.

That's already been happening and arguably what led us to exactly where we are. Allowing the govt to pick and choose is what has lead to the detrimental effects.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh this is brainstorming, I like that!

Here is an idea, put everyone who thinks arms are important to society, sick or not, under a big dome with all the arms of the world. Let them have their armed breakaway society and the problem could solve itself rather quickly...

a reply to: JinMI

Allowing the govt to pick and choose is what has lead to the detrimental effects.

Do you think the MIC would make more beneficial decisions, if it wouldn't have to spend billions on lobbing their wars, and could just go ahead profiting in every possible armed conflict?

Beneficial to whom?

Why lobby in the first place if the government picks and chooses anyway?

a reply to: JinMI

In consideration for your question regarding military service and immigration, i think we should first ask,
Why don't we require service from citizens?
We could make some scenario where you have to achieve a certain education level before entry, and then serve and be able to earn college credits or something similar for the field you served in, such as IT or Construction and infrastructure, Management similar to or better than a BA for officers ect.
This would not only train citizens in the use of firearms and self defense but also better prepare citizens for entry into the workforce which would cycle us back to a comment you made earlier

Allowing people more profitable employment opportunities would go a long way to quelling the national strife we face.

This would also apply to immigrants, in addition we may see more immigrants who are willing to support this nation as well a drop in those who come simply for the money to send home or for criminal reasons, but this doesn't address the issues that have caused the immigration in the first place.

I would absolutely support required service after high school or some level of college. It is one of the few things in life wish I had done differently even though I don't regret not doing it.

a reply to: JinMI

The steel mill in my 600K city is responsible for half of our combined CO2 pollution. How many 3D printers are you going to set up for the 9 Barbenheimer plastic carrier fleets you'll need for this literal theater of National Security Acts, in case you really want to make a dent in that mountain of future shipwreck-steel alone?

And how fast is this going to happen, because time is running out?

a reply to: datguy

Why don't we require service from citizens?

Because the gov't can't compel you into a contract. Yet, I find the question very interesting and compelling.

Question back to you, how would you begin to measure if an immigrant, who may or may not allow for service for citizenship, has American interests as priority?


I mean look at what the 9/11 hijackers did over a long period of time.

a reply to: JinMI

my knee jerk response is that it is irrelevant where their allegiance lies. If the intent is to create a workforce to produce tax revenue as well as train and arm the global population to be a "polite society", just assume that they are not loyal, no need to give them access to any "state secrets" or classified info.

There are lots of front lines out there and more appearing everyday.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: JinMI

my knee jerk response is that it is irrelevant where their allegiance lies. If the intent is to create a workforce to produce tax revenue as well as train and arm the global population to be a "polite society", just assume that they are not loyal, no need to give them access to any "state secrets" or classified info.

There are lots of front lines out there and more appearing everyday.

Fair enough.

Although on the premise of supporting the MIC, that does not translate to providing front line bodies, especially American ones of the GI nature. Private contractors notwithstanding.

Point being, if you've a standing army of foreign born GI's, what would stop them from doing anything against American citizens? They weren't born here, dont' have roots here, nor any kind of national identity to the US.