Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Novus America]

So John Bolton apparently got fired? His claim is that it isn't official yet, but the media is going with "he's fired".
While I'm not the biggest fan of his I am an advocate for regime change in Iran and Venezuela among other countries and I was happy that there was such a strong hawkish voice in the White House. One positive from this news however is more proof that Trump is the funniest person alive right now:

"A few months ago Donald Trump hosted Leo Varadkar, Ireland’s prime minister, in the Oval Office. Gesturing to his mustachioed national security adviser, the US president said: “John, is Ireland one of those countries you want to invade?”"

What's the RWDT consensus on interventionism, war, regime change and such? I know that the right-wing online tends to be more non-interventionist than academic right-wing circles but I'm curious nevertheless.

(Note: Bolton isn't a neocon so I don't want to hear any complaints about them).

The US should stay out of other countries, period. The existence of the state department is a waste of taxpayer money.

This extreme isolationism is also a bad idea, what happens other places does effect us, we are not an isolated island.

The answer is somewhere in between. We should not get involved in excessive interventions that are not necessary. But complete isolationism is a bad idea too.

[Hanafuridake]

If you're an ancap reading LOTR, is Sauron the hero because Frodo violated the NAP?

[West Leas Oros 2]

If you're an ancap reading LOTR, is Sauron the hero because Frodo violated the NAP?

If Sauron were actually Ancap, he would McNuke the Shire.

[Nova Cyberia]

If you're an ancap reading LOTR, is Sauron the hero because Frodo violated the NAP?

Frodo took Sauron's property without his consent so he was obviously justified in using any means possible to get it back, up to and including destroying Middle Earth.

[Lower Nubia]

Sorry for the delay, I do still have a holiday to enjoy.

No your statement was: “>Assuming we like Trump here” I pointed out 30% do and 15% couldn’t tell. Which I would of thought was pretty pathetic concerning the nature of his character and that this thread should be on top of political developments.

The 15% can be explained by a mixed reception towards his policies. Many approve for instance of his more hard-line stance on China's gradual ascent to the status of global power and local hegemonic polity and his attempts to disentangle us from unwinnable conflicts in the Middle East. Both are arguably positive foreign policy developments that are not besmirched by his unceasing gaffes, inability to formulate cohesive and appealing legislation in conjunction with Congress, and personal moral failings. Beyond that, though, my point hasn't really been refuted. Most people who cast a vote in the poll did not approve of Trump and, in terms of active participation, our traditionalist, libertarian, and quasi-fascists aren't too keen on him either. We can expect some right-wingers to support him, of course, but the bulk here do not. He actually has arguably less support here than he does among moderates in the US.

Yet the only parts of Trump's presidency I do find appealing are the things you have mentioned, yet I still clicked no for the poll, therefore your example is not inclusive of reality and confirms my issue: people here are supposed to be politically informed and yet 15% are deciding unsure based on an "okay" foreign policy which is nonsensical. It seems to me, that, from your examples, people are looking for confirmation of something good in his presidency, yet a presidency is not just a partly okay foreign policy - it is moreso domestic policy too. Therefore your example proves my point: that the 15% and the 30% lack the capacity to think clearly on this matter, therefore this thread represents a disproportonate support for his office, my claim all along, 30-45% support to 55% non-support for his presidency.

Which seems that though you critique Trump, that this thread agrees more keenly then you let on.

Seeing as “respect in this aspect” is not relevant in a discussion of “respect across their time and for their respective policy”. You said he lacked “self-respect” I assume you meant across his current political time from which you extrapolated from that event. Which makes your statement not a: “in this respect” but with respect to their current political career. A clear leap.

"In that respect" was not a reference to self-respect. I don't really get how Sanders being a left-wing activist and opposing racism, as a good many non-leftists did, is indicative of an especially high degree of self-respect on its own.

The conversation:

I didn't argue that Trump had gravitas. I argued simply that he had more than Bernie Sanders.

And the only thing you presented that Trump had more of “gusto” is that he doesn’t get sidelined by protesters. Which is actually fuck all of anything in the grand schemes of their lives.

Again, my argument was that Trump was superior to Sanders in that respect. Mind you, not by much, but superior is superior.

Seeing as “respect in this aspect” is not relevant in a discussion of “respect across their time and for their respective policy”. You said he lacked “self-respect” I assume you meant across his current political time from which you extrapolated from that event. Which makes your statement not a: “in this respect” but with respect to their current political career. A clear leap.

Superior in that respect was clearly referring to having "gusto" concerning protestors for which I countered that self-respect across their political careers favoured Bernie much more than Trump. That you clearly make a leap; because he lacks respect during a protest he must lack self-respect overall against trump. An obvious leap on your part.

But I must also remind you I have agreed to your position I stated: "We’re talking about the men, not their policies: an anarchist, communist, monarchist, liberal, and Republican can all have spines. A spine is a dependant on the resolve of will which can be for all policy - for right or wrong." Yet I must note that it is active and genuine participation in activism for rights which people must engage in: being a right/left-winger doesn't provide you with the self respect just because your movement may engage in activism for its cause, it is the protestors who go on the street and promote that idea or difficulty who deserve the praise in that movement, because they defend it openly. For right or wrong, Bernie engaged in that process actively and promoted and defended those ideas openly; which deserve respect, because he is willing to fight for what he believes. That takes Spine.

Concerning your part about: "I don't really get how Sanders being a left-wing activist and opposing racism, as a good many non-leftists did, is indicative of an especially high degree of self-respect on its own." It is clear that both the Republicans and Democrats love the status quo, which you have admitted continues to lack the necessary reforms needed to support workers, here is a candidate; right or wrong, who wants to reform that system desperately.

We’re talking about the men, not their policies: an anarchist, communist, monarchist, liberal, and Republican can all have spines. A spine is dependent on the resolve of will which can be for all policy - for right or wrong. Bringing policy into this is not my concern, you already admit that convincing such entrenched right wingers would be pointless. Yet Bernie’s position on the spectrum does not aquit him of a spine: did I mention Trump’s policies in determining his overall resolve? Only his personal actions. So do not politicise this - because it means nothing. I believe for the traitorous actions, not resolve, the examples of policy are a valid discussion - yet Trump has actually performed treasonous actions by supporting policies and actions which are a detriment to his people. Whereas, as you admit, we must extrapolate Bernie to an executive position where his voice in the 60's and 70's determines the effects of his policy - a difficult position from which to accrue evidence of traitorous position.

Sanders does not have a spine, regardless of your political convictions. He has principles that he lacks the force of personality and courage to argue for, even on a platform he has earned, in the face of shrill, ignorant opposition.

Again you must be referring to the BLM protest? You know he was hired by that event to speak and when the protestors came in, he actively told the organisers to allow there protest and speech. Do you think that's weak? That a leader allows protestors to speak?

The difference between me and you: a leader who gives way for other discourse is weak, you admit that. To me, the fact he gave them a voice was an important part of his candidacy as an activist of the system which actively sought to bury the problems they raised with the system: police brutality. He fought against police brutality in his youth, nowhere is a movement which discourses around this problem: he either dispels them and is a hypocrite, or he allows them to speak, and (to you) is seen as weak. Which should it be? Either way, I agreed with his decision, because that's what a leader should do: give voice to the concerned in society. Now he has the demographic support from the BLM movement, which before that protest he did not have, while pissing off people who would never vote for him anyway, such as yourself.

In other words a tactical win.

He allows himself to be shouted down and made to stand in a corner like a mischievous school boy. He does not have the strength to oppose the Chinese or to whip our complacent allies into line.

Pure fucking speculation. Especially seeing as Trump already has lost the respect and support of his allies. Yet you got that from a protest? You should be a shrink.

The last two things you mentioned will only be known with any certainty come the 2020 candidate selections and election campaigns. I don't seek to discuss speculation.

He has been critical of Trump for doing so and has not offered a coherent counter-narrative. My entire premise is that he lacks the mettle and spine needed in a national leader. He's better as critic and a congressperson. I do not trust him at the helm and most Bernie Bros only seem to trust him because they have idealized his achievements and platforms.

Pure fucking speculation, there is no coherent narrative because these are not coherent times.

You would count that in Kavanaugh’s favour even today?

You don’t have to be comfortable. Especially seeing as he promoted the Democratic socialism of Western Europe which was prevalent during the time. I'm reminded of similar sentiments of Bernie's reflected by the Labour and, even Conservative, policies of the UK in the 60's and 70's, and even sentiment to the Soviet Union, yet the outcome of their policies was not to give way to the authoritarianism of the Soviets but the policies of Democratic Socialism.

I count it in Kavanaugh's favor because he didn't bend and break even in the face of concerted and baseless political attacks on his character and personal morality.

Yet you don't count Bernie's activism against the government poor policies in his favour? Double standards.

Sanders allowed himself to be shouted down by BLM activists who didn't support his message and didn't like him,

Yet Bernie supports protests, they didn't need to agree with his message because he agreed with theirs. He actively allowed them to speak at the organisation, by allowing the organisers who hired him to speak to not bring insecurity to remove them - and you state: "and didn't like him" yet because he allowed them to speak, they now support him. The only people who thought the situation a failure are people who would never vote for him anyway, people like you.

meekly conceded defeat after the DNC threw its institutional weight behind Clinton even before the polls had opened and cheated on numerous occasions to help her, etc.

Why should he support Hillary? They actively disagree wholeheartedly on every policy. I'm glad he didn't compromise to support her, she was a terrible candidate. He ha now returned to be the candidate of the DNC, I fail to see that as hiding especially seeing as he continued to drive support between 2016 and now, unlike other democrat candidates.

Europe is not a good example of democratic socialism because, at present, the workers' do not control the means of production.

Please, his policies are currently equivalent to our Lib-Dem policies. He's not radical here in Europe, even the Conservative party engaged in Democratic socialist policies under Heath with the nationalisation of public institutions.

The fact that Sanders equates the Nordic Model and Rhine Capitalism with the achievements of the USSR, Venezuela, and Cuba, even a little bit, or with democratic socialism, suggests that he's ignorant as well as spineless.

Denmarks Democratic Socialist party from the early 20th century today continue to promote the nordic modal. Alongside Sweden's Social democrat party which has ruled in minority for decades in succession. I find it nonsensical to separate the influences on socialist policies from the soviet union to the Nordics and to other countries like the UK, whose Labour laws are heavily indebted to the same influences across these systems. The severe failure of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela was the authoritarianism, but even democratic socialism of the UK, and Nordics are/was highly variable in the means by which workers should control the means of production.

"Obviously the Soviet Union was an authoritarian society with no democratic rights, and I think if you know history, you know the democratic socialists fought and stood up against that."

I’m giving a Trump equivalent for his shallow mind and lack of spine in driving the efforts to help these people. Because it goes against the narrative of “America first”. Just as you gave an example for Bernie Sanders, I have worse examples from Trump - seeing as this is a pissing contest for who is apparently the most cowardly.

Trump hasn't lost a podium to protesters who didn't like him yet. Trump hasn't praised America's enemies repeatedly without any ostensible aim aside from implementing some utopian pipe dream. Trump's issue isn't that he's a coward.

Bernie gained a demographic of protestors because he was willing to give them a voice. Is that not the purpose of a leader? To vouch for the majority and minority? I'd hardly call Bernie's policies a "Utopian Pipedream" we currently live that pipedream in Europe, thank you.

It's that he's a blow-hard who lacks tact and flatters anyone who appeals to his ego. It's an egregious fault, but not the same thing. He's... not well-versed on policy to put it politely and has no idea what he's doing.

Yet these are less of character traits than giving a voice to protestors. You have a weird metric for character, self-respect and spine.

Yes, but Sanders and people like him certainly served to undermine the war effort through their activism.

The war effort was hampered because of poor tacticians, an underestimation of Vietnamese resolve and overconfidence. Don't blame protestors for the fact that the largest military on earth failed. Especially seeing as the protestors only gained real traction after a victory failed to materialise quickly; ergo a symptom, not a cause, in other words, it was doomed to fail from the start.

And? Police brutality is a celeb cause among white liberals too. I'll pay attention when he promotes family-based welfare, reform of the funding processes for primary schools, stronger religious and communal institutions, and re-industrialization of cities like Detroit. I'll pay attention when the DNC starts giving some measure of attention to petroleum workers, farmers/ranchers, etc. instead of waging crusades on behalf of middle-class students.

Police brutality is a problem in all societies, don't shew it away just because you think it's a left conspiracy, it's a quality of corruption and scandal whichs exists in England and the US, and every other western society, this needs reform. These things haven't materialised under any president, you've admitted a such, therefore the welfare nets he proposes will work to mitigate the effects of job loss. Detroit will never get it's jobs back; it's a high delusion, even Trumps strong "America First" narrative has failed to materialise the necessary change. While Bernie's promotion of further education funds and healthcare funds will mitigate the effects as we've witnessed this very same process in Europe. Your ideas haven't and will never materialise under conservative governments. So who do you support here?

The New Left actively broke down many of them. As did free trade.

If they were that easily dismantled then they were not fit for purpose to begin with.

The SCOTUS remains the most trusted governmental institution in the US. The DNC began the process of denying competent justices back in the 1980's. They have politicized the process considerably since then and are actively attempting to subvert certain constitutional protections - such as the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. They don't get to complain about the composition of a court they have belittled and threatened to pack in recent memory, especially not when its more popular as an institution than Congress.

Good God, if that's your most trusted institution then you need help - lifetime appointed judges in a partisan setting? Yikes. I've already admitted to believing that the Democrats are equally as bad as the Republicans in nearly all the same functions. I'm not a Democrat Voter (not just because I live in England). Now the Republicans politicise the process, so this furthers my point about deep reform of your systems, so cheers. You've also admitted that the most trusted system can be easily politicised and easily gamed, sounds reeaaal trustworthy.

While your democracy continues to sideline the popular vote in favour of 18th-century solutions to 18th-century problems.

I have no issue with that actually. It's a minor partisan problem in my view at the moment.

Yeah, the popular vote losing is really democratic.

You admit that the continued deterioration of these institutions produces poverty in these areas for workers and Trump has failed to adequately deal with them, even though he said that he would - so we vouch together that he is a liar - a cowardly trait.

Read up.

While Democrats and Republicans fail to develop the necessary failsafes you require, you need radical change, not the Status quo.

I believe Bernie has entered into plenty of pro-Republican settings and pushed the radical democratic socialist policies to which he has then held his ground. Ultimately I believe this question will be settled more effectively in 2020 and his resolve cannot be decided by a protest, which is spurious testimony of character.

His resolve can be determined by his repeated weakness to innumerable affronts against his person by radicals even before we delve into his fundamental misunderstandings of the ideology he professes to endorse.

Please, you simply fail to understand what a leader actually should be; someone who defends the little people and furthers their voice. When has Trump furthered anyone's voice but his own?

You bring policies into this, again, to discuss character, which I find flawed. Yet regardless of this, his policies will help blue-collar workers; because examples and similarities of his policy have helped blue-collar workers in Western Europe - the erosion of workers rights in western Europe has come to their detriment. Bernies "socialism" is the UK's "centre-right". Which is why I find it eye-roll worthy to say his policies would fail, we Europeans have experimented with much farther "left" policies and are much happier than Americans, and as equally economically capable, which goes for our blue-collar workers too.

Bernie doesn't know what he's talking about. That was my response to you bringing up his struggle for the workers as a symbol of his mettle and spine. My entire point was that he has no idea what he even wants in terms of policy.

His policy is clearly outlined on his website, regardless of whether you think it will work, it is clearly there.

30% do, 15% can't tell. As far as I'm concerned 45% are not capable of seeing the evidence with their own eyes - you lump the 15% with "no" which I find nonsensical; how can you be unsure about the failures of his policies? Without a severe failure in critical awareness? But of course the 55% is a majority, but it is disproportionate to this thread alleged political awareness of what this thread should represent- which was my concern. You promote the 55% as showing this thread is strong in denouncing bad political discourse, I find the 45% who lack critical faculty to discern these things a sign of poor discourse here.

You assume Trump is exclusively bad, principally because you aren't a conservative

a

I've admitted to no such thing, read my first paragraph. I'm less economically conservative because the economic conservatism of today has failed completely. Even the Conservative party of the UK has no actual policy towards the economy except austerity and tax cuts, I much preferred the One Nation Conservatism pre-Thatcher, before the party became a sess pool of just neoliberalism and cronyism - which just increased inequality. My Social conservatism, however, is much more deep than I let on. I am a European Christian after all.

and aren't a nationalist.

Thank fuck for that.

Traditionalists in the American mold can see some tangible benefits to back-sliding on neoliberalism, to taking a sterner line on immigration, and to becoming less hawkish in the Middle East and compromising with Islamists so long as they try not to extend their influence beyond their own borders. The minute they do otherwise we should destroy them.

Some in this list I admire, others, I vehemently do not. Whether their policy is right or wrong to me, I will not deny them resolve, character or spine simply because they hold to politics I do not.

[Genivaria]

I'm opposed on principle to any conflict that does not yield discernible benefits to the United States, that cannot be described as righteous or morally permissible compared to other conflicts, and that we do not have the stomach to fight the minute the media begins reporting on casualties - presuming we even allow them to do so.

Any military action means there is some chance that innocent civilians will die, there is nothing we can do to avoid this.
If there is a cause you care enough to do launch a missile for or send a strike team for then it's a cause you better care enough about to kill someone innocent for because someone is going to die.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Any military leader or expert can tell you this simple truism.
When war is declared innocent civilians will die, that is and has always been the case throughout recorded human history.

If someone actually thinks that civilians dying AT ALL during wartime is a legitimate thing to criticize someone about then please put forward the doctrine or technology that would reduce all collateral damage to 0.00%.

Until someone does this then it's not valid criticism.

[Novus America]

I'm opposed on principle to any conflict that does not yield discernible benefits to the United States, that cannot be described as righteous or morally permissible compared to other conflicts, and that we do not have the stomach to fight the minute the media begins reporting on casualties - presuming we even allow them to do so.

Any military action means there is some chance that innocent civilians will die, there is nothing we can do to avoid this.
If there is a cause you care enough to do launch a missile for or send a strike team for then it's a cause you better care enough about to kill someone innocent for because someone is going to die.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Any military leader or expert can tell you this simple truism.
When war is declared innocent civilians will die, that is and has always been the case throughout recorded human history.

If someone actually thinks that civilians dying AT ALL during wartime is a legitimate thing to criticize someone about then please put forward the doctrine or technology that would reduce all collateral damage to 0.00%.

Until someone does this then it's not valid criticism.

Indeed. War should not be undertaken lightly, and EXCESSIVE casualties should be avoided where it is possible to do so without unduly compromising the mission. But people (including civilians) will die. When you go into war you have to be willing to kill.

If you go in unwillingly to kill anyone, or unwilling to cause any civilian deaths, you already lost.

Also you have to be willing and able to control the narrative like we did in the Gulf War.

You cannot just let any reporters run amok in the war zone.

[New haven america]

Random update for those of you interested in my experiences with co-ed living: When you're the "Dad" of some Sorority girls and establish a good reputation as a trustworthy guy, you somehow end up becoming the Uber of all drunk girls in that sorority. Expanding on that, once you start talking to a lot of these girls, you begin to realize how deep the crisis of fatherhood is in America; many of them have seen their parents divorced multiple times and have horrible relationships with both. However, this is especially true in the case of their fathers, as they've just never had the chance to experience what that's like. If we as Rightists want to start fixing the problems with America, fixing families has absolutely got to be the started.

And cohabitation is one of the main drivers of the collapse of the family structure.

Or maybe it's the fact that the nuclear family structure really only works is a very specific economic situation (That being where prices are low and the economy's booming) and that doesn't work in this day and age. Or maybe it's because rich people (Like those who's children are most likely to join a college sorority or fraternity) tend to be more adulterous or go through spouses quicker. Or maybe it's because their parents grew up in unhappy households with parents that were forced together either by religion or divorce laws of the time and they only saw their parents together being unhappy and dysfunctional.

[New haven america]

Any military action means there is some chance that innocent civilians will die, there is nothing we can do to avoid this.
If there is a cause you care enough to do launch a missile for or send a strike team for then it's a cause you better care enough about to kill someone innocent for because someone is going to die.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Indeed. War should not be undertaken lightly, and EXCESSIVE casualties should be avoided where it is possible to do so without unduly compromising the mission. But people (including civilians) will die. When you go into war you have to be willing to kill.

If you go in unwillingly to kill anyone, or unwilling to cause any civilian deaths, you already lost.

Also you have to be willing and able to control the narrative like we did in the Gulf War.

You cannot just let any reporters run amok in the war zone.

Unless of course your economy is heavily reliant on military activity like the US' is, in which case, war can happen whenever politicians, investors, or bankers, want some extra cash.

[Novus America]

Indeed. War should not be undertaken lightly, and EXCESSIVE casualties should be avoided where it is possible to do so without unduly compromising the mission. But people (including civilians) will die. When you go into war you have to be willing to kill.

If you go in unwillingly to kill anyone, or unwilling to cause any civilian deaths, you already lost.

Also you have to be willing and able to control the narrative like we did in the Gulf War.

You cannot just let any reporters run amok in the war zone.

Unless of course your economy is heavily reliant on military activity like the US' is, in which case, war can happen whenever politicians, investors, or bankers, want some extra cash.

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

[Nova Cyberia]

Unless of course your economy is heavily reliant on military activity like the US' is, in which case, war can happen whenever politicians, investors, or bankers, want some extra cash.

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

Also I just have to have a good chuckle at the implication that the US economy is reliant on war. War hurts our economy. Anytime there's talk of military action from the White House the stock market always takes a plunge. War disrupts trade.

[New haven america]

Unless of course your economy is heavily reliant on military activity like the US' is, in which case, war can happen whenever politicians, investors, or bankers, want some extra cash.

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

I don't think the US companies that participate in military contract work (Like a large chunk if not most US companies do) agree with you. Also, you do know tons of large corporations benefit off of economic downturns and recessions, right? You send the economy down, they buy up depressed stocks, bonds, real estate, etc... and then they wait for the economy to grow again and bank off of their new assets.

And Iraq totally had WMD's.

[Grand Britannia]

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

I don't think the US companies that participate in military contract work (Like a large chunk if not most US companies do) agree with you.

And Iraq totally had WMD's.

Do you honestly think they get more money from war than they do from research and development?

There is a reason they all scramble to get the latest government contract whenever they have a new project.

[Nova Cyberia]

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

I don't think the US companies that participate in military contract work (Like a large chunk if not most US companies do) agree with you.

And Iraq totally had WMD's.

Yes, they did.

Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)

Saddam gassed the Kurds. Saddam possessed chemical weapons. Therefore, Saddam had WMDs.

[Novus America]

Defense spending is only 3.3% of US GDP.
Moreover spending it on military R&D and acquisitions here is better for most than spending it on countries overseas. Vietnam and Iraq actually HURT significant portions of the defense industry as it diverted funds from things like aircraft and ship research and requisition to Vietnamese and Iraqi contractors.

I don't think the US companies that participate in military contract work (Like a large chunk if not most US companies do) agree with you.

And Iraq totally had WMD's.

Many do agree with me.
Of course it depends on what type of contracts they have.

Some that supply logistic services to US forces overseas would disagree with me. But the major aircraft manufacturers would agree with me.

The defense industry is not a hive mind, and not a single united interest group.

The simple point is wars, especially of the COIN type do not benefit all defense companies equally, and actually HARM many.

Vietnam and Iraq lead to many defense programs being cancelled.

[New haven america]

I don't think the US companies that participate in military contract work (Like a large chunk if not most US companies do) agree with you.

And Iraq totally had WMD's.

Do you honestly think they get more money from war than they do from research and development?

There is a reason they all scramble to get the latest government contract whenever they have a new project.

I literally mentioned contract work in my post, so what do you think?

Also, yes, they do get money from war to. As Novus mentioned, it can lower the economy, which means that large companies get to by depressed assets and bank off of them when the economy gets going again.

[Grand Britannia]

Defense companies want the next Star Wars to get billions in R&D, that's their main method of growth.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Conventional old school wars absolutely would be good for the defense industry and the economy but as Novus said, modern COIN based warfare is absolutely not.

[Nova Cyberia]

The defense industry should be nationalized anyway.

[Novus America]

Do you honestly think they get more money from war than they do from research and development?

There is a reason they all scramble to get the latest government contract whenever they have a new project.

I literally mentioned contract work in my post, so what do you think?

Also, yes, they do get money from war to. As Novus mentioned, it can lower the economy, which means that large companies get to by depressed assets and bank off of them when the economy gets going again.

Some do benefit. Many do not. It depends what type of war and the type of contracts they provide.

COIN type wars are extremely harmful to the manufacturers of large ships, conventional fighters and the like.

[Genivaria]

Conventional old school wars absolutely would be good for the defense industry and the economy but as Novus said, modern COIN based warfare is absolutely not.

Slightly irrelevant but I was watching a vid about the Stryker vehicle the other day and someone mentioned that the locals called them the Ghost of Samara because of how they could just sneak in, unload the troops, acquire their target, and disappear in the middle of the night like a ghost.

[Novus America]

The defense industry should be nationalized anyway.

I have to disagree, I do not think the government could run it effectively at all.
It needs reform, but outright nationalization of all is it would be a disaster.

Some things should be brought back under government control, we rely to much on private contractors to provide personnel and services the military can do itself, but manufacturing is not the government’s strong suite.

[Nova Cyberia]

The defense industry should be nationalized anyway.

I have to disagree, I do not think the government could run it effectively at all.
It needs reform, but outright nationalization of all is it would be a disaster.

Some things should be brought back under government control, we rely to much on private contractors to provide personnel and services the military can do itself, but manufacturing is not the government’s strong suite.

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

[Grand Britannia]

I have to disagree, I do not think the government could run it effectively at all.
It needs reform, but outright nationalization of all is it would be a disaster.

Some things should be brought back under government control, we rely to much on private contractors to provide personnel and services the military can do itself, but manufacturing is not the government’s strong suite.

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's too essential of an industry to be left in the hands of private contractors who themselves as you said have different competing interests - interests which do not always align with national interests.

The Russians are able to get their military equipment far more cheaply than we do. Why? Because they have a large, domestic arms industry controlled by the state. It costs of us millions (sometimes even billions) just to get a single tank or fighter.

Theyre also behind on everything barring missile technology so what's your point?

And it doesn't cost "billions" to build a tank or plane outside a few exceptions, mainly the B-2.

Sometimes quantity is better than quality.