Have you read Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky? There's some great examples in there of why military spending is funded by the tax payers etc and how it's unlikely to change.
Well the two main points are tax payer consent/compliance/ignorance and the funding of high technology through the 'military system' (see the headers: 'The Military-Industrial Complex' and 'The Permanent War Economy
( ... )
In other words in his usual pattern Chomsky's analysis consists of fuzzy judgments that use no specific examples and reflect his inability to analyze anything with actual humans involved. There's no reference to how new a great deal of that military spending is, or to anything of the social/political context in which the US and Soviet military-industrial complexes appeared. Nor is there any reference to anything of how this spending was often disastrous and counterproductive to the end it theoretically espoused.
The number of humans 'employed' versus 'budget dollars' is not a really fair comparison.
The military infrastructure is always the last to implement technology upgrades, unless upgrades tend to make better quality craters. The 'backside', or administration, is still probably running Windows 95. Why? So it takes people to do the job machines should. Why? Because they are a bureaucratic entity; indeed, the biggest, therefore the best at adapting for survival. Hell, they got all the nukes! The bureaucracy makes sure the system is fucked up just enough so they are always needed as the Global Defenders.
Figure out how much of that DoD number is active military, and that will tell you what you are up against. You are not just cutting budgets. You are taking on Cthulhu armed with a toothpick. A very irritating toothpick.
Re: RED FLAGmontecristoSeptember 27 2011, 21:17:19 UTC
Figure out how much of that DoD number is active military, and that will tell you what you are up against.
Given that much of Ron Paul's support comes from active military personel, and Ron Paul is the candidate who has received the most from active military personel, I would say that you can't count just the physical "number of bodies" in the military as a guage of how influencial it is. Much of the "rank and file membership" to not seem to be on board with the program. Maybe they aren't being cut in for a big enough piece of the deal by those at the top, perhaps.
Comments 50
Reply
Reply
Reply
big difference.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yup, that's the linguistic rock-star for you.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
i can promise you this though--he wouldn't take a bullet for Wal-Mart.
Reply
that makes me sad.
Reply
This is comparing apples to oranges.
The number of humans 'employed' versus 'budget dollars' is not a really fair comparison.
The military infrastructure is always the last to implement technology upgrades, unless upgrades tend to make better quality craters. The 'backside', or administration, is still probably running Windows 95. Why? So it takes people to do the job machines should. Why? Because they are a bureaucratic entity; indeed, the biggest, therefore the best at adapting for survival. Hell, they got all the nukes! The bureaucracy makes sure the system is fucked up just enough so they are always needed as the Global Defenders.
Figure out how much of that DoD number is active military, and that will tell you what you are up against. You are not just cutting budgets. You are taking on Cthulhu armed with a toothpick. A very irritating toothpick.
Reply
Given that much of Ron Paul's support comes from active military personel, and Ron Paul is the candidate who has received the most from active military personel, I would say that you can't count just the physical "number of bodies" in the military as a guage of how influencial it is. Much of the "rank and file membership" to not seem to be on board with the program. Maybe they aren't being cut in for a big enough piece of the deal by those at the top, perhaps.
Reply
Leave a comment