Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,991 posts)
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:53 PM Oct 2014

WAR: Bad for the good guy, good for the bad guys and really good for the money guys

Monday, October 06, 2014
by digby

This seems like it should be an obvious cause for concern, but I doubt anyone cares much:



ISIS’ Ammunition Is Shown to Have Origins in U.S. and China

In its campaign across northern Syria and Iraq, the jihadist group Islamic State has been using ammunition from the United States and other countries that have been supporting the regional security forces fighting the group, according to new field data gathered by a private arms-tracking organization.

The data, part of a larger sample of captured arms and cartridges in Syria and Iraq, carries an implicit warning for policy makers and advocates of intervention.

It suggests that ammunition transferred into Syria and Iraq to help stabilize governments has instead passed from the governments to the jihadists, helping to fuel the Islamic State’s rise and persistent combat power. Rifle cartridges from the United States, the sample shows, have played a significant role.

“The lesson learned here is that the defense and security forces that have been supplied ammunition by external nations really don’t have the capacity to maintain custody of that ammunition,” said James Bevan, director of Conflict Armament Research, the organization that is gathering and analyzing weapons used by the Islamic State.


The military equipment ISIS has "procured" in Iraq is similarly American made, obviously.

I suppose we should look at the silver lining here. If America can corner the market on arms in all sides of a war, it's a beautiful recipe for profits. And if we can keep that war going for many, many years just imagine the riches they can obtain.

Yes, taxpayers will foot the bill for both sides in these wars, obviously, but maybe we can think of it as a stimulus for the manufacturing sector. It's a job creator!


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/world/isis-ammunition-is-shown-to-have-origins-in-us-and-china.html
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

samsingh

(17,598 posts)
1. in this situation - many innocent people are getting
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:56 PM
Oct 2014

slaughtered by isis. isis will not stop until someone fights back.

i'm not sure how we can justify not fighting back

 

R.Quinn

(122 posts)
4. It's true that ISIS is killing innocent people, which is terrible.
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 05:00 PM
Oct 2014

But my question to you is, why is that America's problem?

Is ISIS killing innocent Americans in America? If not, why is it our responsibility to fight them?

 

R.Quinn

(122 posts)
6. I don't dispute that Bush fanned these flames
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 05:16 PM
Oct 2014

but can you explain why you think they threaten us when they aren't right here in the U.S.?

We are a bankrupt nation and we really can't afford to go fight them over there, to say nothing of spending precious American lives.

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
8. How can we justify not going into Rwanda or Somalia?
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 05:46 PM
Oct 2014

They were begging us to help them. Begging.

I say we go where we are asked for help and stay the fuck out of a 2,000 year old religious war.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
13. Many innocent people were killed by the Western Allies in Iraq which led to the anger and hatred,
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:57 PM
Oct 2014

that spawned ISIS, which really is AQ and who were armed and trained by our so-called allies.

Let me ask you something, we know that over one million Iraqis died in that criminal war. You never mentioned them, or the ones we are still killing with drones etc. So my question is, what is the difference between our government killing people, blowing them to bits with bombs and other WMDS and ISIS? Other than we have so far, killed far more people. IS there a difference?

Dustlawyer

(10,495 posts)
14. We tortured and killed too! Our government is no different. I can see Dickhead Cheney cutting
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 07:53 PM
Oct 2014

off people's heads, especially a certain black American head. He would do it too!

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
2. The solution, of course
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 04:57 PM
Oct 2014

Is to pour more arms into the area, in the hopes that ISIS won't get its hands on all of it. We should pay top dollar for these replacement arms and munitions, naturally, so we can be sure we're getting the highest quality killing doohickeys for use against these bloodthirsty thugs who are so underhanded, they'll even steal other people's weapons!

Seems legit.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
10. ''Money trumps peace.'' -- appointed pretzeldent George Walker Bush, Feb. 14, 2007
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:09 PM
Oct 2014

The very words of George W Bush on Feb. 14, 2007, uttered at a press conference in which not a single of the callow, cowed press corpse saw fit to ask a follow-up. And then he laughs.



I remember Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention.

As for his Poppy: Bush Sr told the FBI he was in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
12. When it comes to preserving prosperity for empire, Tyler Cowen's the man.
Mon Oct 6, 2014, 06:50 PM
Oct 2014

Last edited Mon Feb 23, 2015, 11:40 AM - Edit history (1)

There's a reason it's not on tee vee: It interferes with the New Message, which, as the great DUer Will Pitt noted, is the same as the Old Message. Message Theory. On-Message Theory.



The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0



The guy seems to specialize in Big Ticket themes:

Just when I thought, maybe, we had reached bottom and were ready to bounce up -- I discovered there may be no bottom -- for me and the large part of the 99-percent.



Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has seen the future and it looks bleak for most of us. Thankfully, those at the top, though, are in for some more good times. He spoke about his findings with NPR's Steve Inskeep. I almost dropped my smartphone into my coffee while texting during rush hour, listening to the report this morning, I was so steamed.



Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse



For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, we can't afford that now, obviously.

Oh, the good news is the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class" while the rest of the middle class goes the other way. Gee. That sounds eerily familiar. Oh..."Commercial interests are very powerful interests" uttered same press conference where Smirko said, "Money trumps peace." Pretty much always the on-message 24/7/366 for most of the last century.

Tyler Cowen, man of the hour. Hope it's not the last one for democracy or us.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»WAR: Bad for the good guy...