Why I don't really buy the "threat" argument

[AllentownJake]

I have read in history how the elites act when there is an actual threat to a nation, and their standing. Our Founding Fathers (all elites) put their name on a document that was essentially a hangmen's list in 1776. In the civil war, the entire Northern and Southern economies were under the control of their governments and committed to the war effort. In World War II the children of America's most powerful and economic and political families went to fight in the war and when I say fight, I mean really fight, they didn't take positions in the JAG corp.

We committed every single asset we had to defeating the enemy. We devoted our entire economic, political, and military power to eradicate it from the face of this earth.

Now other than the professional Armed Forces, who I do have a great deal of respect for, being the son of two officers, I don't see this country doing this.

You can always measure the threat based on what the elites do. I don't see that many elites pulling their children from college to fight the enemy. I do not see elites taking their money and buying war bonds to support the war effort and bring it to the quickest possible conclusion with the enemy destroyed. I do not see the elite willing to forgo their profits on the ordinary affairs of American commerce to devote their assets to the destruction of this enemy.

What were we told to do in 2001, Go Shopping. In 1941 we were told to conserve resources. In 2009, I do not hear the call for civilian sacrifice that would disrupt corporate profits, so forgive me when I'm skeptical how grave this threat is.

I saw the elites shitting their pants in October of 2008, and we got TARP. I'm not seeing them shitting their pants right now, and when I don't see them shitting their pants over a threat from a foreign entity. I do not shit mine, or support their wars.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Can you tell me how elites acted in the run up to WWII?

I mean, BEFORE Pearl Harbor, not after it.

[AllentownJake]

2. They tried to have a coup to take down the democratically elected leader

and sold weapons to Hitler. They viewed FDR a bigger threat than the Germans till London was being bombed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. So that's probably an example that doesn't really fit your world view. (nt)

[AllentownJake]

11. That they viewed a progressive President as more of a threat than Hitler

till bombs started falling.

These people elected George W. Bush twice, fits my world view perfectly.

[AllentownJake]

4. Of course, 9-11 happened already

So under that reasoning, they don't really seem to be that afraid of Bin Laden.

[madinmaryland]

7. Why should they be afraid of Bin Laden? Afterall he has been a boon

to many companies bottom lines.

:mad:

[AllentownJake]

8. Yes the war profiteering this time around

Has reached obscene levels.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. We're far enough away from 9/11 that I'm not sure the analogy fits anymore.

I think we're more concerned with the nuclear weapons across the border in an unstable country this time around, in addition to having another 9/11 happen.

[AllentownJake]

12. What made the country unstable the past 8 years nt.

[TomClash]

3. K & R

There is a lot of truth in what you say - it's a variation on "follow the money."

[eleny]

5. Fighting a war with someone else's body and with money we don't have

[AllentownJake]

6. You can always tell when it isn't about survival

and about something else, when they won't stick their own asses out there to fight it.

[Dragonfli]

13. +100

[Lilith Velkor]

14. !

[Postman]

15. Bingo. No draft, no war tax on the wealthy, no civilian sacrifice,,,

It is complete bullshit because this is not a war for national survival or REAL national security (in the sense of needing to protect the American people from physical harm) -- this is military action being used to further the wealth of corporations and the MIC.....

Over 700 military bases all over the globe....WTF?

[Robb]

16. Always, ALWAYS a good way to think about it. Excellent post. nt

[AllentownJake]

18. Thank you nt.

[VMI Dem]

17. The Bush Doctrine: War based on the possibility of a threat.

[Individualist]

24. Using fear as a tool to get people to support war was despicable when Bush/Cheney did it.

It's no less despicable that Obama is continuing to use it.

[EFerrari]

19. If they had really been concerned about the Taliban,

they wouldn't have allowed Omar to sit in Karachi for all these years.

If they were really concerned about Al Qaida, we would have taken out those camps in Pakistan years ago.

I don't buy it.

[AllentownJake]

20. Yep

They need an enemy. If there is no outside threat, than the American people might start questioning what is going on in their own country, that would not be good for business.

I don't believe 9-11 was a conspiracy involving the US Government, or US elites. I certainly think they jumped for joy after the shock that it happened that they had an enemy to replace the Soviet Union as a distant boogey man.

If it hadn't happened, they would have found someone to fill the role.

[EFerrari]

22. That's right. And my undocumented brothers aren't scary enough:

"Wanted for gardening, look out for someone small, dark and gentle" -- it doesn't really work.

[AllentownJake]

Are you crazy

and give up the cheap help?

Don't you find it amusing that as much as the GOP rails against immigration, they really never do anything about it, other than cut access to services from the government.

Their donors demand the cheap labor.

[Postman]

21. If they really cared about "terrorism" they wouldn't have funded them back in the 1980's

[EFerrari]

23. They're still doing that shit in Latin America.

In Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and probably other places I don't know about.

/oops