You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #12: I wouldn't put it that way. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-22-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I wouldn't put it that way.
Profiteering always plays a role and any war will generate profit for someone who may therefore support it primarily so that they can get a piece of the business (whether that's in arms, security, mineral resources, debt management, rebuilding contracts, and so forth).

However, what drives the political decision making is mainly the policy-makers' (executive and military) perceptions of the political, economic, and geostrategic interests of their "country" (as they may define it), clients and supporters, allies, etc. These can often be twisted, and are often not-so-incidentally self-serving.

But again, purely humanitarian motives? Please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -How can you believe any of these military attacks are ever for humanitarian purposes? JackRiddler  Mar-22-11 01:53 PM   #0 
  - K&R for a thoughtful post  leftstreet   Mar-22-11 01:57 PM   #1 
  - Greed is the only motivator for any action  liberal N proud   Mar-22-11 02:03 PM   #2 
  - You just said we don't get their oil so we have no financial interest?  aquart   Mar-22-11 02:07 PM   #4 
  - It is always financial.  liberal N proud   Mar-22-11 02:10 PM   #7 
     - follow the money  shanti   Mar-22-11 02:24 PM   #17 
  - I wouldn't put it that way.  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 02:18 PM   #12 
  - I can use any argument I damn well please.  aquart   Mar-22-11 02:04 PM   #3 
  - +1  Wait Wut   Mar-22-11 02:09 PM   #5 
  - "Our rich don't fight, they can at least buy the bombers" Now that would be shared sacrifice...  mod mom   Mar-22-11 02:23 PM   #16 
  - It doesn't matter who I would prefer to have as "the major military power on this planet."  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 02:28 PM   #21 
  - The Bengazi tank thing probably wouldn't hold up to much scrutiny  The_Casual_Observer   Mar-22-11 02:10 PM   #6 
  - Read Twitter  revolutionnow45   Mar-22-11 02:13 PM   #9 
     - Is there any way of knowing whether or not the tweets are actually  The_Casual_Observer   Mar-22-11 02:15 PM   #11 
        - we already KNOW the corporate media lies  revolutionnow45   Mar-22-11 02:21 PM   #15 
           - Sure thing.  The_Casual_Observer   Mar-22-11 02:26 PM   #20 
  - I do not trust their motives, but these guys were asking for help  revolutionnow45   Mar-22-11 02:10 PM   #8 
  - Maybe they use softer bombs during humanitarian missions.  Zanzoobar   Mar-22-11 02:15 PM   #10 
  - Check the Smurfs w/the Nerfs!! n/t  jdlh8894   Mar-22-11 02:37 PM   #23 
  - Actually the resolution does authorise everything presently being done.  Spider Jerusalem   Mar-22-11 02:20 PM   #13 
  - You're saying bombing Kadafy's tent (while calling for regime change) is a "necessary measure"...  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 02:34 PM   #22 
     - Well, no, and the Chief of the Defence Staff in the UK and the senior US officer for Africa Command  Spider Jerusalem   Mar-22-11 02:52 PM   #25 
  - As long as they give the rebels breathing space to strike back at Gaddhafi,  damntexdem   Mar-22-11 02:21 PM   #14 
  - +1  meow mix   Mar-22-11 02:24 PM   #18 
  - exactly! we just have to make sure NO GROUND FORCES as per their request  revolutionnow45   Mar-22-11 02:24 PM   #19 
  - I certainly don't. I believe our entire society is primarily motivated by profit and control.  TheKentuckian   Mar-22-11 02:39 PM   #24 
  - maybe, maybe... the question should be...  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 06:23 PM   #28 
  - You nailed it!  Little Star   Mar-22-11 02:53 PM   #26 
  - Thanks.  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 04:58 PM   #27 
  - Because those bombs...have small abouts of snacks inside them  Rex   Mar-22-11 06:26 PM   #29 
  - Yeah, at least this time they're not doing the "food packets" charade like with Afghanistan.  JackRiddler   Mar-22-11 06:27 PM   #30 
  - Was that not the reason NATO involved itself  LanternWaste   Mar-22-11 06:35 PM   #31 
     - kick  JackRiddler   Mar-23-11 01:00 PM   #32 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC