War is not Fought for Profit

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

At 9/7/2013 8:44:26 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

.....Taxes are voluntary you mo'mo

At 9/7/2013 12:13:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

Profit is the return of investment on capital and doesn't include work/effort in that factor (A thief stealing from a grandmother does).

At 9/7/2013 8:44:26 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

.....Taxes are voluntary you mo'mo

At 9/7/2013 2:06:34 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Do people make profits from war? If the answer to this is yes, then wars cause profits to happen. So wars are fought for profit, at least a little. I didn't say that wars are CAUSED for profit, just that fighting them creates business opportunities for people who participate a certain way.

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

Really? So South Korea being a thriving democracy and a strong capitalistic economy isn't self-evident? Are you purposely ignoring this?

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".

At 9/7/2013 2:48:43 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

Vietnam arguably would have had the same effect if we were succesful. Afghanistan was imo, as I said, the closes to being purely for our benefit. We had a score to settle, and we settled it. The following rebuilding phase was imo an equal split for our benefit as much as theirs. If we had the balls to follow through and not back out when it became too difficult, the following occupation could have been a positive result

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

Really? So South Korea being a thriving democracy and a strong capitalistic economy isn't self-evident? Are you purposely ignoring this?

How does South Korea's thriving economy and similar political structure NOT benefit the US?

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

At 9/7/2013 3:19:03 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

Ah then I see we have essentially nothing to discuss lol, as it would simply be the choir preaching to itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding good sir

At 9/7/2013 3:19:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Although, I will caveat that it is very difficult to imagine the Korean War proper helping South Koreans.

What helped South Koreans much more was reconstruction after the war. The war itself was a catastrophe for the entire peninsula.

At 9/7/2013 3:21:43 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:19:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Although, I will caveat that it is very difficult to imagine the Korean War proper helping South Koreans.

What helped South Koreans much more was reconstruction after the war. The war itself was a catastrophe for the entire peninsula.

But the reconstruction into the South Korea we know today was only possible because of the Korean war.

At 9/7/2013 3:20:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:19:03 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

Ah then I see we have essentially nothing to discuss lol, as it would simply be the choir preaching to itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding good sir

Np. Sorry for being a stickler for clarity. =)

At 9/7/2013 3:14:55 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
*North Korea not South Korea

essentially Wrichrw we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars securing trade routes, providing the majority of defense capabilities for countries around the world, step in for violations of international laws, etc. and that benefits us more than it does those we do it for? Hardly