Bill Moyers nails Obama on Afghanistan

[WarDog]

Bill Moyers sits down with award-winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill to examine the human and financial costs of America's wars.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06052009/watch.html

[CUnknown]

I know a lot of people on this board are in favor of privatization of many aspects of the government. So I'm curious as to people's opinions about the privatization of war. Should mercenaries be a part of our military? I agree with using Letters of Marque to hire what are essentially mercenaries to hunt down terrorists like Bin Laudin.. but when it comes to replacing US Troops with mercenaries on the battlefield, I am very hesitant.

At the end of the segment, Scahill raises the possibility that one day, corporations may have their own private armies. To me, that would be an absolutely horrifying scenario, and even worse, one that seems to be rapidly becoming true.

I think there are some things that shouldn't be privatized, and war is one of them.

[0zzy]

I know a lot of people on this board are in favor of privatization of many aspects of the government. So I'm curious as to people's opinions about the privatization of war. Should mercenaries be a part of our military? I agree with using Letters of Marque to hire what are essentially mercenaries to hunt down terrorists like Bin Laudin.. but when it comes to replacing US Troops with mercenaries on the battlefield, I am very hesitant.

At the end of the segment, Scahill raises the possibility that one day, corporations may have their own private armies. To me, that would be an absolutely horrifying scenario, and even worse, one that seems to be rapidly becoming true.

I think there are some things that shouldn't be privatized, and war is one of them.

sure, then privatize the courts and cops and fire department! privatize it all!

wait... no no no that's a horrible idea.

[Brassmouth]

I think there are some things that shouldn't be privatized, and war is one of them.

Damn right! Because then we'd be forever locked in perpetual war with no way out until everyone was either dead or bankrupt!

Oh wait...that's what we have now......

Oh, the magic of State propaganda. :rolleyes:

[jmlfod87]

Why is corporations having their own armies such a horrifying idea? I'd much prefer it if corporations had armies as opposed to the State. At least with a corporation if I didn't like how they were using their army I could stop buying their products. If a state is using its army inappropriately (see Iraq), there is nothing I can do to stop it because the State collects its revenue through taxation, not through satisfying consumer demand, like corporations.

[Theocrat]

I think that program pretty much showed how much of a hypocrite Obama is. On the one hand, Obama is against profits of corporations who deal with commercial and financial goods. On the other hand, Obama is for supporting corporations which make profits from foreign policy and defense. I see how it is, Barry.

[FSP-Rebel]

If war was privatized, we wouldn't be raped and pillaged to support it. If ya feel in danger, then hire a protection firm on your own. Why in the world, with the government's track record on killing, would we want them involved in the war machine where they can fleece us to fund their buddy's businesses? I'm shocked at the support for government military on this board...

[JK/SEA]

I think we just need to follow the Constitution.

[FSP-Rebel]

I think we just need to follow the Constitution.
That would help, but unfortunately government is a tool that powerful people get involved in to benefit their friends and punish their enemies. That's why we're at where we're at today...

[Sandman33]

I'm ashamed and disgusted.

Using Robot drones to kill people...

Hiring MERCINARIES?

I'm upset, I'm angry, and I'm a debt slave.

[Dieseler]

Obama should Nationalize the Military Industrial Complex lol.
No need of that though as they are apparently doing quite well financially while us citizens prepare for an extended recession of general financial great depression.
We'd likely never see another war again short of someone invading us if he did. He, on the other hand would likely not finish his first term in an upright position.

I'm not so sure about the above theory really.
Might make things worse.
Umm, No to mercenaries.

[GunnyFreedom]

I know a lot of people on this board are in favor of privatization of many aspects of the government. So I'm curious as to people's opinions about the privatization of war. Should mercenaries be a part of our military? I agree with using Letters of Marque to hire what are essentially mercenaries to hunt down terrorists like Bin Laudin.. but when it comes to replacing US Troops with mercenaries on the battlefield, I am very hesitant.

At the end of the segment, Scahill raises the possibility that one day, corporations may have their own private armies. To me, that would be an absolutely horrifying scenario, and even worse, one that seems to be rapidly becoming true.

I think there are some things that shouldn't be privatized, and war is one of them.

Well, considering how Congressional Power to declare war is in the same section as Congressional power to coin and regulate money...and we see how well privatizing the monetary system has done for us...I'd say no. Let's not privatize our war system.

HOWEVER

I would like to see the original concept of a militia GREATLY expanded in the role of National Defense. I personally believe that 50% of the Federal Defense budget should go straight to the freely-caucused leadership of the several state's citizen militia as defined by Federal Law.

[GunnyFreedom]

WRT Mercenaries, we already have more merc's on the Gov'ts payroll in Iraq and Afghanistan than we do servicemen. That's why when they report "Troop Levels" it's a fictitious crock of beans.

The question is not "should we privatize..." but, "what do we do NOW that we have ALREADY privatized..."

[Danke]

Also, with the MIC and our bought off political class, it would be hard to argue, with banksters financing both sides, that we don't already have a private military.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think there is a 'conceptual echo' effect going on here... ;)

not that we live in an echo chamber here, but reason tends to reach similar conclusions based on the same evidence.

[Danke]

I think there is a 'conceptual echo' effect going on here... ;)

not that we live in an echo chamber here, but reason tends to reach similar conclusions based on the same evidence.

I think we were typing at the same time. Brilliant minds think alike. :D

[ghengis86]

I think we were typing at the same time. Brilliant minds think alike. :D

brilliant minds think for themselves:D

(sorry, i couldn't resist!)

[GunnyFreedom]

brilliant minds think for themselves:D

(sorry, i couldn't resist!)

and yet, if they don't generally arrive at the same conclusions... then one or both (or all of them as the case may be) were not very brilliant at all. ;)

[BenIsForRon]

Naomi Klein refers to nationalization of the banks in a different way than we do. She says, in reality, the government is getting privatized by the banks. Both are true, and both end up with us getting screwed royally.

So the distinction between the private and public military can really get blurry when you get down to it.

[GunnyFreedom]

Naomi Klein refers to nationalization of the banks in a different way than we do. She says, in reality, the government is getting privatized by the banks. Both are true, and both end up with us getting screwed royally.

So the distinction between the private and public military can really get blurry when you get down to it.

Well, the dictionary definition of fascism has generally been 'government ownership of the market' but I tend to think of it more as 'a marriage of government and market'

and with both the law about monetary policy AND the power to maintain a defense and declare war BOTH being contained in Article 1 Section 8, closely colocated; I I'm inclined to agree with their fundamental relationship with one another.

Marriage of government and the market produces an all-powerful Federal Reserve
Marriage of government and warfighting produces an all-powerful DOD racket

I'm having very little trouble drawing parallels here.

[nayjevin]

Defense contractors, infrastructure construction, pipeline installation, oil, and opium interests have cooperated to co-opt our foreign policy. Our people have quit joining the fight in large enough numbers, hence the mercenaries.

Strict non-intervention is the most just manner of maintaining a state military force. If our military were not allowed to use force beyond our borders, corporations could not benefit from our dying boys like they do today.

Privatization just means no state military. This is more just - whoever wants war must pay for it themselves. It seems dangerous - that thug militaries could just pop up everywhere, but I don't think this would be the case.

- would not have the force of government taxation/inflation to fund missions
- war/killing/use of force is expensive, and if not payed for by us, would not be nearly as profitable (if at all). for instance, if there were no state military, brown & root -halliburton-cheney-kissinger-project for the new american century, et al would have to pay mercenary thug soldiers' paychecks -- same with cost of weaponry -- which would effect the corporation's bottom line. currently, we pay for these killing machines -- free.

[GunnyFreedom]

Defense contractors, infrastructure construction, pipeline installation, oil, and opium interests have cooperated to co-opt our foreign policy. Our people have quit joining the fight in large enough numbers, hence the mercenaries.

Strict non-intervention is the most just manner of maintaining a state military force. If our military were not allowed to use force beyond our borders, corporations could not benefit from our dying boys like they do today.

Privatization just means no state military. This is more just - whoever wants war must pay for it themselves. It seems dangerous - that thug militaries could just pop up everywhere, but I don't think this would be the case.

- would not have the force of government taxation/inflation to fund missions
- war/killing/use of force is expensive, and if not payed for by us, would not be nearly as profitable (if at all). for instance, if there were no state military, brown & root -halliburton-cheney-kissinger-project for the new american century, et al would have to pay mercenary thug soldiers' paychecks -- same with cost of weaponry -- which would effect the corporation's bottom line. currently, we pay for these killing machines -- free.

I have to disagree.

Pass a law that mandates the use of military within CONUS only, and the enemy-makers just make domestic enemies to justify spending & power instead of using foreign enemies for that purpose. You are not talking about the 'privatization' of Federal defense and warfighting, but it's abolition.

If the government maintains a standing army, this is a "public" warfighting and defense capability.

If the government pays 'private' organizations to do their warfighting and defense bidding for them, then this is "privatized."

If the government just decided that they will have no part in warfighting and defense, and let whomever wants to raise an army for whatever purposes, then the government has abdicated itself of the responsibility for warfighting and defense altogether, and therefore has no such capability whether public OR private.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Sorry, but Scahill is another fucking Statist douchehole. His 'endgame' of 'Corporations replacing Nation-States' is code for 'Fuck the Libertarians'. I've heard it before from numerous people who think the Government should do everything. There is nothing inherently wrong with PMCs. The problem isn't Privatization (code for: The State is Good), its Nationalization. If our military would ONLY defend CONUS, instead of being Interventionist, there wouldn't be any problems with PMCs. The Standing Army, instead, would be replaced with the Militia as its supposed to.

There is a perfectly legitemate reason for having Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Afghanistan fits that reason like a glove. I'm sorry, but Scahill is wrong on the 'mercs'.

[nayjevin]

Pass a law that mandates the use of military within CONUS only, and the enemy-makers just make domestic enemies to justify spending & power instead of using foreign enemies for that purpose.

I don't mean pass a new law -- I mean in our status quo, if the military were limited by strict non-intervention in foreign affairs, it would not find itself outside of it's own borders - by definition. This is superior to what we have now.


If the government pays 'private' organizations to do their warfighting and defense bidding for them, then this is "privatized."No, privatization is

The transfer (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transfer) of a company (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/company) or organization (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/organization) from government (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/government) to private (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/private) ownership (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ownership) and control (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/control).

no government in bed with corporations at all.

What you are describing as privatization is what we already have -- a marriage of corporation and military -- and that is to a degree fascism, by classical definition.


If the government just decided that they will have no part in warfighting and defense, and let whomever wants to raise an army for whatever purposes, then the government has abdicated itself of the responsibility for warfighting and defense altogether, and therefore has no such capability whether public OR private.

We have no disagreement here as to definition, except that i don't assume military force a responsibility of government in the first place. This is the most just way to handle it, as I outlined above. Then defense measures are taken by individuals only on the basis of personal need and contract - not via coercion and taxation as it is today.

State military defense is the biggest 'seat-belt law' of them all.

[nayjevin]

The Oil Factor: Narrated by Ed Asner, features Karen Kwiatkowski

The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243)

[Liberty Star]

Bill Moyers sits down with award-winning investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill to examine the human and financial costs of America's wars.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06052009/watch.html


Bill Moyers is one of the few honorable, honest media journalists on TV. His Ron Paul interview before Iraq war has become a PBS classic. I donated to PBS because of Bill Moyers cutting edge journalism.

[Danke]

Bill Moyers is one of the few honorable, honest media journalists on TV. His Ron Paul interview before Iraq war has become a PBS classic. I donated to PBS because of Bill Moyers cutting edge journalism.

I don't follow him much, but I always had the impression he favored government intervention in our lives to solve "problems."

[Liberty Star]

I don't follow him much, but I always had the impression he favored government intervention in our lives to solve "problems."


My impression of him was based his news/views programs in recent years that happened to focus on US foreign policy. Even if he doesn't hold Libertarian views on every issue as you suggested, that alone would not disqualify him from being an honorable/honest jouranalist though. I can respect sincere and honest difference of opinion on any domestic/foreign policy issue. My impression has been that he's not part of the corrupt sleaze that plagues much of our media.

[inibo]

Bill Moyers is one of the few honorable, honest media journalists on TV. His Ron Paul interview before Iraq war has become a PBS classic. I donated to PBS because of Bill Moyers cutting edge journalism.

This.

I disagree with what I consider his obvious statist bias, but to me his integrity is about as close to unassailable as it gets in his industry. He asks questions that people on all sides would prefer not be asked.

[CUnknown]

I like the conversation so far. :)

I think something we can all agree on is that the way in which things are going with our military is bad news. The government giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton and Blackwater (Xe) to provide shoddy work and brutal thuggery is not in the best interests of the country.

If we stuck to a Constitutional foreign policy, and needed mercenaries because perhaps we were under attack on American soil and short on manpower, then I'd change my opinion about mercenaries, I suppose. But for now I am strongly opposed.

[nayjevin]

war profiteers:
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-1284316238313714%3Amsazxhk06xk&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=war+profiteers&sa=Search

[acptulsa]

Why is corporations having their own armies such a horrifying idea?

Because we already have the state forcing us to buy their crap at gunpoint and ostensibly we can vote its heads out of their offices. Have to own stock in a corporation to even vote on its officers...

[nayjevin]

corporations do have their own armies, achieved via lobbying and huge government contracts -- we pay for it.

return to small, sensible government and non-intervention would be preferable. then we can vote with our dollars, and stop purchasing from corporations if they are bold enough to start a free market army. they wouldn't, IMO, but would be forced to resort to more subtle methods of political and economic influence.

there are still problems in a free market, but it is far preferable to bloated government projects such as militaries that squander individual wealth, fund and protect contract winning corporations.

The current system:
- corporations influence government via lobbying and stake in media to reinforce existing systemic societal divisions and erode liberties.
- the agenda favors further state control to maintain power among those who already have it.
- the system protects itself via agencies such as FCC and RIAA, bailouts, and regulatory legislation that drives out competition
- war is one of the most powerful tools in the handbag to maintain/increase power of the few over the many

free market is preferable - funding for this crap cannot come at the hand of forceful coercion as it does when government is involved.

[RevolutionSD]

I know a lot of people on this board are in favor of privatization of many aspects of the government. So I'm curious as to people's opinions about the privatization of war. Should mercenaries be a part of our military? I agree with using Letters of Marque to hire what are essentially mercenaries to hunt down terrorists like Bin Laudin.. but when it comes to replacing US Troops with mercenaries on the battlefield, I am very hesitant.

At the end of the segment, Scahill raises the possibility that one day, corporations may have their own private armies. To me, that would be an absolutely horrifying scenario, and even worse, one that seems to be rapidly becoming true.

I think there are some things that shouldn't be privatized, and war is one of them.

1. I'm completely against the idea of war (total collectivism, nothing to do with freedom or liberty), so there is no right answer to this except not to start wars to begin with.

2. This kind of "privatization" has nothing to do with the free market anyway. These are hand-picked firms by the government like Blackwater. This is total corporatism, or fascism if you'd like. The opposite of free markets.