I agree that monopolies don’t exist without government intervention, and I’m against government welfare for corporations. That wasn’t what I was talkiing about. Butler appeared to be attacking all profiteers and insinuated that the profiteers are to blame for the war. Profiting from a war is not the same as starting a war and Butler needed to establish a causal link in his essay, not just a correlational one.

That said, I do think that well-connected corporations have exerted undue influence in the fighting of this war. The numbers of no-bid contracts awarded are astronomical compared to other wars, as are the terms of those contracts and the enforcement of them when the contractors renege or chisel. The Bush administration has allowed favored contractors to sidestep the bidding process under questionable justifications, they’ve allowed contractors to chisel our government for a lot of money without holding them accountable, a lot of that is based on personal ties, and the administration has openly retaliated against whistle-blowers who expose abuses. So I agree with you on that point, government favoritism for companies involved in the war in Iraq and the war on terror is a very ugly situation now.

There have always been war profiteers and there will always continue to be war profiteers…that’s just human nature and the free market, if there’s a profit to be made people will try to make it.

Profiting is fine. Profiting from government coercsion is not. It’s not compatible with laissez-faire free markets.

I think Butler missed this point…he seemed to equate profiting from war with causing the war to happen, and they aren’t the same thing.

I tend to agree with Rothbard’s view that monopolies don’t happen without the help of government. By the same token, I don’t think it’s coincidental that well connected industries profit from government policies, i.e. corporate welfare.

Also, keep in mind that Butler lived during a time of conscription, so not all of his arguments are applicable in current times. Soldiers aren’t slaves to the state any more (or at least, not completely) and citizens are not required to serve. That said, I do agree with his premise that interventionist war rarely benefits anyone but the profiteers…I’d be curious what he’d think about the current conflict or the Bushes. Unfortunately he’s not around to provide that input.

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.” –Smedley Butler

I think Butler joined the Marines voluntarily. So, conscription is likely irrelevant to his post-military views.

Paul is about to, and in fact already is, receiving *massive* international money for his candidacy. This is mainly due to foreigners understanding of economics and economic freedom and how it relates to what Ron Paul is saying. It is N O T an accident that Paul is about to give a major policy speech. There are numerous warning signs to the underpaid Paul campaign:

#1 and most important) I know you are unthanked and overworked. But you need to possess clarity and skill in fully documenting the international funds that your Boss is now getting. It needs to be fully documented in hardcopy at the outset of ANY DEBATE. Any large contribution whatsoever. This is critical to the Paul campaign.

2.) The Paul campaign, in real terms of monetary value and growth potential, is actually #1 among any other GOP contender. As campaign staff having to do with any monetary matter…. you will be tempted into “fun nights” and other things specifically designed to discredit. UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT FREAKING NOW.

3.) Watch Paul’s schedule. Study his bookings close.

4.)Keep in mind that YOUR candidate is about to revealed as the most money-grabbing GOP candidate in the field. There is going to be….. unimaginable pressure both attempted blackmailed, high-level threats, and the usual sabotage.

This guy is exploding, and it’s nothing like any analogy about Howard Dean. This is real shit. As a member of the Paul, you better grow up real real quick. And you will still need help. God help you.

There have always been war profiteers and there will always continue to be war profiteers…that’s just human nature and the free market, if there’s a profit to be made people will try to make it. The difference is that under both Bushes the war profiteers seemed to have a hand in determining if we went to war. In Korea, Vietnam, WWII, etc. they merely benefited from a decision made without their input. I think Butler missed this point…he seemed to equate profiting from war with causing the war to happen, and they aren’t the same thing. Also, keep in mind that Butler lived during a time of conscription, so not all of his arguments are applicable in current times. Soldiers aren’t slaves to the state any more (or at least, not completely) and citizens are not required to serve. That said, I do agree with his premise that interventionist war rarely benefits anyone but the profiteers and I’d be curious what he’d think about the current conflict or the Bushes. Unfortunately he’s not around to provide that input.

All the more reason for us to be back on the gold standard.

Good for everybody except those benefiting from the fiat system. I’ll say it again, Ron Paul will be assassinated before he gets a chance to be elected. Either the Fed mob will take him out, or the truthers will for “betraying” them. Since Ron Paul’s chances are still kind of low, I’m leaning towards the latter. ;-)

On a related note, Ron Paul supporters concentrating only on the Ron Paul presidency is really missing the big picture. The grassroots support should be trying to get libertarian leaning congressmen elected. If they can get one libertarian leaning congressmen elected from each state in the next election, that’ll be a really good consolidation prize for 2008. It’ll only make electing more of them easier in 2010.

Although I will admit that intervening militarily with corporate interests in mind does appear to have been something of a trend with both Bush presidencies. Bush 41 was far smarter about it, though.

This has been happening well before the Bush’s…

You should check out “Dereliction of Duty” by H.R. McMaster for an excellent analysis of the proper role (both historically and Constitutionally) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in advising the president on military and how Vietnam was essentially fought and screwed up because the civilian administration failed to heed the military expertise of the JCS and replaced officers who didn’t tow the party line. I think you’ll find it surprisingly in line with your beliefs. I know that the Bush administration didn’t read it…they repeated a large number of LBJ’s mistakes in Vietnam almost exactly. And the parallels between Rumsfeld and McNamara were absolutely unreal.

In an ironic twist, the author of the book served last year as a battalion commander in Iraq. Good officer and did an effective job in his region, more from the Petraeus school of counterinsurgency (engage the population and isolate the insurgents) than the Franks/Odierno school (kill ‘em all and throw the rest in prison).

That’s an inaccurate generalization. The military leadership was opposed to military intervention throughout the Clinton years, and many military flag officers opposed, and still oppose, what Bush has done in Iraq. Soldiers are quite often the most hostile towards fighting pointless wars or rejecting diplomacy because they’re the ones who are forced to bear the worst of the costs. The reason you don’t hear as much dissent as you did under the Clinton years was that Bush made it quite clear (with Rumsfeld’s handling of Eric Shinseki) that military advice that contradicted his own opinions on warfighting would not be tolerated and that anyone who offered it would be marginalized or removed. For several years now, the Pentagon hierarchy has been promoted and kept around based only on personal loyalty to the President, not operational competence or results achieved. It’s why several generals, like John Batiste, chose to retire from active service…so they could protest against the war being marginalized by the Bush administration as incompetents who were forced out.

http://cbs2.com/nationalpolitics/politicsnational_story_130024518.html

js290,

All the more reason for us to be back on the gold standard. And I think your characterization of the military’s role is a bit exaggerated. Although I will admit that intervening militarily with corporate interests in mind does appear to have been something of a trend with both Bush presidencies. Bush 41 was far smarter about it, though.

Rho,

Bill Murray spent the entire movie looking like he was bored and he’d rather be doing something else. Auteurs seemed to think that it was a detached acting style (like Lost in Translation, which I thought was pretty good). I got the impression that he simply doesn’t like acting any more and he’s mailing in his performances. He’s been this way for awhile now, actually. The rest of that movie was just boring and pointless. Sort of like “Rushmore” except with all the humor and interesting characters removed.

And I do get excited about Ron Paul’s issues…but I also temper that with realistic expectations of his chances. I’ve worked in political campaigns before and I’ve been down this road before. That said, it’s still aways to go before the voting, and I do think he’s got a chance, but the odds are pretty long.

They’ll take our money whether there are troops on the ground or not.

UC,

since I’m inclined to believe that government intervention, whether it be war or laws, is done at the behest of those who can finance it, it’s easier for me to believe that the military is not much more than “high class musclemen” for the financiers.

This post is a good summary of why Saddam taking Euros for Iraqi oil was a threat to the dollar, which is why he had to be taken out. Guess who else is threatening the dollar with their oil? Iran and Syria, perhaps? Iran just recently allowed Japan to pay for oil with their yen.

Man, you’re one of many who’ve said that or something similar to me. It annoys me ’cause Bill Murray can really be funny, but my instincts told me to stay away from that turkey. I’m still hoping “The Darjeeling Limited” rolls well. I have high hopes!

Drudge is reporting 3.1 million viewers with the Fox debate. That’s pretty outstanding. C’mon, get excited!

Besides the military only sees military solutions.

“When you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.”

So it’s sort of futile to ask your generals for the best course of action. Of course they are going to be for continued military action. For the civilian leadership to yield to the military in deciding the course of the American foreign policy is a dereliction of duty. Unfortunately, none of the leadership in Congress seem to have a spine to stand up to the president and his requests for military funding.

A “less than zero” percent chance? You mean people will actually cast negative votes for Ron Paul? Because I don’t think the poll numbers support your conclusion either, and although I’m kind of cynical about his chances I’m also able to recognize that fatalism’s an ideology for losers. Paul may be a long-shot, but the election’s hardly a foregone conclusion.

As for Iraq, Bush’s generals can say whatever they like about it. He’s gone in 18 months and the supplementary funding for the war comes up for review sooner than that. And if the Pentagon fails to get their funding, the troops are coming back home regardless of Bush’s desires, so the military’s projections are hardly set in stone. The Pentagon doesn’t get to determine its own course of action, nor does it get to approve its own funding requests…that’s the nice thing about living in society where the military answers to civilian leadership.

I know this is all feel-good for you guys, but there are things you just cant force to change. The pentagon has already made clear Iraq will be in progress years from now.

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/09/the-economics-o.html

I don’t think that attitude actually helps the poor and hungry. I think that attitude infantilizes the poor and hungry and creates a rationalization for government to exert its authority over them (and, eventually, us) through welfare laws, redistribution of wealth, and plain old petty political opportunism.

I served for a year in South Korea. Frankly, I couldn’t understand why we were still there. The ROK military is more than capable of annihilating the DPRK army if they tried to invade (they beat us in most of the exercises we took part in). A lot of the post-Korean War era we spent propping up unpopular autocracies. Half the time, I suspected we were just there to keep South Korea from invading the north (they were certainly more than capable of doing so, assuming the Chinese didn’t get involved). And I agree with your argument, it’s not right for a foreign country to dictate terms to someone else on their own soil.

I think too many Americans in general think of other countries as pieces of property to play with. This may be a good thing when it comes to helping out the poor and the hungry, it it also shows up in ugly ways like this – since America kicks ass we know what’s best for everyone in the world. Doesn’t matter if we’re saving them from disease or defending them.

I came from South Korea so I had the benefit of being exposed to the other side of this story. To me it seemed like we should be thankful that USA was defending us – but the truth is, people just PLAIN DON’T LIKE IT when another, superior country comes in and dictates things. It doesn’t matter if the end result is beneficial for the people or not – people don’t like being told what to do by a bunch of foreigners.

Unfortunately for us(a), the last time we had an experience like this was before the revolutionary war. I love Paul’s analogy of how we’d feel if China was here. Americans really need to understand that marching into someone else’s territory is almost always a bad idea, regardless of your intent.