Riga Marole, I have to say that as one that came from a Banana Republic, fleeing a civil war and with training in Social Studies, I say that Exapno Mapcase and John Mace are correct. As I explained before, one only needs to be aware that of course the US is not perfect and there are many that would love to make a Banana Republic of the USA, but even the muddling vigilance out there has prevented those from taking over. The efforts should be against those that are still pushing for that and follow similar extremist ideas.
Once again, eternal vigilance is the key, but your points are more like eternal vigilantism.
The global arms trade amounts to $82 billion. The U.S. GDP is about $16 trillion. For arms manufacturing to become the U.S.'s sole commodity, either its GDP would have to collapse, or the rest of the world would have to increase their military spending by an amount equal to 20% of the world’s GDP.
So you’d like for me to submit each and every name of those applicable, right? I like you. You have a sense of humour. :D:D:D
The effect it has on the average citizen is the focus point. It doesn’t matter if it’s the middle class or the lower class or even if it shifts. If a greater percent of the population goes “without” then the results are the same as far as national hardship is concerned.
Are you asking absurd questions intentionally? You don’t understand the difference between an acceptable uneven wage and a desperate one? Wake me when you’ve your answer.
Riga, this isn’t meant as a personal attack, but since by your own admission you had no idea who J. Edgar Hoover was are you really sure you know enough about American history to make the pronouncements you’re making.
Would it even be possible for you to acknowledge that your linked article does not say at any point that the U.S. arms industry is increasing?
Really. That’s never mentioned. In fact, the article quotes two different Congressmen as saying that the defense budget is decreasing. What they’re hoping for is an increase in sales to other countries to make up for this domestic decrease.
When you can’t be bothered to read your own cites, mockery will be your constant companion.
First of all I’m sorry if you didn’t get the joke. But secondly, even if I didn’t know who Hoover was it wouldn’t mean I don’t know who cut down the cherry tree and how it was done.
He did not say that arms sales were failing to increase. He pointed out with actual numbers that arms sales are so far down the list of money generating industries in the U.S. that a silly claim that we are “moving toward a single commodity” economy is merely ludicrous. If we point out that military sales are going to rise 5% while tractor sales are going to rise 7%, would you then say that we are moving toward a single commodity economy?
Or are you simply going to ignore facts that do not feed your particular polemics?
The claim is even more ridiculous than your analysis shows. Note that Riga “conveniently” left off the “export” part of that definition:
Emphasis added
So, you can’t just add up all the sales form the defense contractors-- you should only count the sales from exports. If you consider that total exports count for about 13% of GDP, you’d have to reduce your numbers by about a factor of 10 even if the only thing the US exported was arms and arms were the only thing the US exported (assuming total exports remained the same).
You need proof or a cite of what “seems”? Oh, you mean you don’t like it when I give opinion because it’s “weaseling”. Shit, now I forgot what the question was about. Oh yes, you were insinuating that it doesn’t seem like the U.S. is increasingly relying on the manufacturing of military arms and unless I can cite exact figures … you won’t. Is that right?
You don’t think the U.S. population is nearer to upheaval lately? Bush’s WMD hoax, the invasion of Irak, the lie of proof, the cover-ups, the question of Obama’s birth and his popularity, the economic crash, the Wall Street uprising? It doesn’t seem (oooops!) that a coup or revolution à la 1960’s is possible?
Riga Marole,
As a disinterested bystander I just wanted to give some tips to someone not familiar with the way things go around here. In the Great Debates forum in particular there is an expectation that someone posting these kind of statements will post objective evidence to support them. And that evidence will be critically examined by other posters and counter evidence supplied.
I don’t post much in Great Debates because I’m simply not knowledgeable enough on enough subjects, but I spend a lot of time reading it, in a good argument you can go from ignored to informed and the make a rationale judgement independently.
Not saying most of the threads are good arguments, but even one-sided arguments can be informative.
No one is complaining because you have an opinion. The complaint is that you have posted opinions that are not supported by facts. Even when you post links, they do not provide facts to support your opinions.
As with your claim about the U.S. moving to a single commodity economy where the “best” you can provide is a link to a claim that the U.S. might sell more arms, without a single reference to the numbers of dollars such “increased” sales might bring or any demonstration of how those “increased” sales would measure up against the current U.S. economy.
There was no serious threat of revolution in the 1960s. There is REALLY no threat of revolution, now.
There was a lot of social upheaval in the 1960s, but the overwhelming majority of people continued to believe that the country should continue the form of government that was already in existence. There were revolutionaries calling for change, but they were hardly persuading anyone to join them. Black Panthers? A tiny percentage of a group that only composed about 10% of the population, resulting in a few hundred members. SDS (or related groups)? They were loud but ineffective. For all the complaints from the Right that Baby Boomers were not supporting the Vietnam War or the country, polls among Baby Boomers showed that they were slightly more in favor of the war than many other demographic categories and more than half the men who died in combat were Baby Boomers.
The same phenomena occur today. The Occupy Wall Street never had more than a few thousand members (in a nation of 300 million), and the Tea Party groups only made up about 18% of one political party against a different party of similar size and an enormous number of people unaffiliated with either party.
I suspect that you get your information from agencies who are promoting a particular agenda and who generally see the world filtered through their desires.
You’re wrong, tom. The Jefferson Airplane clearly believed in revolution. It was all over the Volunteers album.
Hey Riga. You know how old I am? I got the Volunteers album free along with a subscription to Rolling Stone. When I was in college. During the Nixon years. When not all that long after the Volunteers album arrived, we shut down the school because of the Kent State shootings.
So I think there was in the air for a moment a chance of possible revolution. Not a real chance. More like 0.0001% of a chance that some idiotic move might have tipped us over into a serious incident.
But that never happened. And that 0.0001% chance is 0.0001% more than any chance today. When despite the obvious inequalities and failings in our system, the vast majority of Americans are fat and happy.
Your computer may be infected with a virus because I said, revolution à la 1960’s.
In any case, I too lived through it and much more intensely and personally than you apparently imagine. I remember the mass protests, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the enormous opposition, the dead at Kent State, tear gas, the march on Washington, arrest and police beatings of protesters, and so, so much more. Are you saying that you don’t remember that revolution was in the air? If so then I must question your faculty of recollection.
So on point, that sort of revolution was only thwarted by Bush Jr.’s second term ETS. Obama is (was) the default remedy but as you can clearly see he’s not made much of a dent in his promises. In fact, there exists such a sideshow stink over his legitimacy that has NEVER been experienced before. In short, the ”revolution” was put on simmer rather than abandoned.
I agree that the U.S. was more fractured during the 1960’s than it is now but it’s been rising. I think that if Bush could have remained a third term we’d be seeing new-age hippies standing round the Pentagon, hand in hand chanting incantations today. As it is though, Obama seems (oooops!) to have alienated the flip side of the American population and the original dissatisfactionsionés don’t know what to make of it.
The next man in office will probably either lull the American people to sleep or anger the population into picking up where they left off with Geo. Dubya’ - and go ahead with the “revolution”. I sincerely hope that your computer virus doesn’t drop the quotation marks on your screen.
My computer is fine. You said “coup or revolution”. There was neither.
I was there. There was lots of talk of revolution, and there certainly were a few fringe groups trying to violently overthrow the government. Of course it didn’t happen. Not even close. Protest happen all the time, but protests aren’t revolution.
There was no revolution. You’re talking out of your ass.
Another antagonistic remark. So I take it you’re not interested in the resolve I speak of? Anyway, I don’t respond very well to tough-guy bullying, so what are the chances that you “knock it off”? Now.
Then you agree with him that knowledge of American history can only be got when one first knows who Hoover was? It’s like what … the single question on an entrance exam for history education in the United States? Those who know who Hoover was have an opportunity to go on to college … those who don’t, have to roll up their sleeves and go straight to the factory. :smack:
