Re: McCain using Hitler in the "debate" - in 1940, there were no satellites

[rp08rp]

There was NO INTERNET
NO GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS
NO SATELLITES, heck we can hear see most anything now, so dont buy that crap.

Back then the world was isolated much moreso

In my opinion,
NON-INTERVENTION is VERY POWERFUL in today's GLOBALIZED world!


Please dont forget then when debating regarding McCain and Hitler, B.S.

[Visual]

lol there's a better argument to the hitler thing.


Hitler was attacking countries and felt the world didn't care or wouldn't do anything because they were a great military power, you know, sorta like we are now. Not to mention even if we weren't isolationist then, (which we weren't) we had no reason to attack him.

[ProBlue33]

As Ron Paul mentioned Nuclear Subs. Nobody(government army) is going to attack America, because of the nuclear subs, he is so right.

Any attack on American soil would result in return strike 20X what they did to America. American armed forces are so much more advanced than in 1941.
No COUNTRY is that stupid, and Ron Paul knows that.

McCain needs to wake up.

[rp08rp]

As Ron Paul mentioned Nuclear Subs. Nobody(government army) is going to attack America, because of the nuclear subs, he is so right.

Any attack on American soil would result in return strike 20X what they did to America. American armed forces are so much more advanced than in 1941.
No COUNTRY is that stupid, and Ron Paul knows that.

McCain needs to wake up.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2AWjMC15OU

Not even Transformers, LOL

[Kingfisher]

WAR IS A RACKET!! Check out who always loses economically, and who always gains. The taxpayer pays and the big corporations collect. (Haliburton)

[Visual]

As Ron Paul mentioned Nuclear Subs. Nobody(government army) is going to attack America, because of the nuclear subs, he is so right.

Any attack on American soil would result in return strike 20X what they did to America. American armed forces are so much more advanced than in 1941.
No COUNTRY is that stupid, and Ron Paul knows that.

McCain needs to wake up.

IMO, the more logical reason no one would attack is because
1) It's physically impossible to actually occupy the entire country. The best they could hope for is occupying regions or states.

2) Every american has access to guns, plural.


The nuclear subs, i'm assuming your talking about nuclear missle subs, wouldn't nuke the attacking country. That would assure our destruction, along with the rest of the world when the atmosphere ignites because of the mass of nuclear weapons that would be used. Nukes are only used in defense of other nukes. To use them for any other reason is suicide.

[ladyliberty]

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

military-industrial complex

network of individuals and institutions involved in the production of weapons and military technologies. The military-industrial complex in a country typically attempts to marshal political support for continued or increased military spending by the national government.


The term military-industrial complex was first used by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961. Eisenhower warned that the United States must “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex,” which included members of Congress from districts dependent on military industries, the Department of Defense (along with the military services), and privately owned military contractors (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman). Eisenhower believed that the military-industrial complex tended to promote policies that might not be in the country's best interest (such as participation in the nuclear arms race), and he feared that its growing influence, if left unchecked, could undermine American democracy. Click here for an audio clip from Eisenhower's Farewell Address.

Although Eisenhower is credited with the phrase and many scholars regarded the phenomenon as new, elements of the domestic and international military-industrial complex predate his landmark address. Military forces have been funded overwhelmingly by national governments, which historically have been the target of lobbying efforts by bureaucrats in military-related ministries, by legislators from districts containing military bases or major military manufacturing plants, and by representatives of private firms involved in the production of weapons and munitions. Because the goals and interests of these various actors broadly coincide, they tend to support each other's activities and to form mutually beneficial relationships—what some critics have called an “iron triangle” between government officials, legislators, and military-industrial firms. For example, legislators who receive campaign contributions from military firms may vote to award funding to projects in which the firms are involved, and military firms may hire former defense-ministry officials as lobbyists.

Some features of the military-industrial complex vary depending on whether a country's economy is more or less market-oriented. In the United States, for example, weapons production shifted from publicly owned companies to private firms during the first half of the 20th century. In France, however, the national government continues to own and manage most military-related enterprises. Although in most cases the military-industrial complex operates within a single country, in some cases, such as that of the European Union, it is international in scope, producing weapons systems that involve the military firms of several different countries.

Despite such differences, the military-industrial complex in most economically advanced countries tends to have several characteristic features: a high-tech industrial sector that operates according to its own legal, organizational, and financial rules; skilled personnel who move between administration and production; and centrally planned controls on the quantity and quality of output. Because of the technological complexity of modern weapons and the preference in most countries for domestic suppliers, there is little competition in most military markets. The military services must ensure that their suppliers remain financially viable (in the United States and the United Kingdom this has entailed guaranteeing the profits of private firms), and suppliers attempt to ensure that public spending for their products does not decline. Because of the lack of competition and because the budgeting process is often highly politicized, the weapons systems purchased by national governments are sometimes inordinately expensive and of questionable value to the country's security. In addition, the pressure for large military budgets exerted by the military-industrial complex can result in the depletion of the country's nonmilitary industrial base, because, for example, skilled workers are attracted to high-paying employment with military firms.

The term military-industrial complex can also refer to the physical location of military production. Military spending creates spatial concentrations of prime contractors, subcontractors, consultants, universities, skilled workers, and government installations, all of which are devoted to research and development on, or the manufacture of, military systems and technologies. Examples include the aerospace complex in southern California, the shipbuilding complex on the southern coast of South Korea, and the isolated military research complex of Akademgorodok in Siberia. National governments often created such complexes in locations without a history of industrial production by underwriting massive migrations of skilled labour, and the areas came to resemble company towns that provided not only jobs but also housing, health care, and schools to workers and their families. The need to preserve this infrastructure can contribute to political pressure to maintain or increase military spending. Indeed, sometimes governments have chosen to continue funding weapons systems that branches of the military have deemed obsolete, in order to preserve the communities that are economically dependent on their production (e.g., the B-2 bomber and the Seawolf submarine in the United States).

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991 reduced, at least momentarily, the influence of the military-industrial complex in many countries, particularly the United States and Russia. However, in part because of rising military involvement in the Middle East and concerns about terrorism, it remains a potent political force in both the United States and Russia, as well as throughout the world.



Rachel N. Weber

[idiom]

I so wish RP had called out McCain for Violating Godwins Law


whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress

[angelatc]

lol there's a better argument to the hitler thing.


Hitler was attacking countries and felt the world didn't care or wouldn't do anything because they were a great military power, you know, sorta like we are now. Not to mention even if we weren't isolationist then, (which we weren't) we had no reason to attack him.

It's not "sort of like we are now," it's exactly like we are now. Heck, Japan was aggressively marching up through China, overthrowing weak local governments and replacing them with puppet nationals who were sympathetic to Japan's interests in the natural resources of the region.

Gee, who does that remind me of?

I'm telling you people - you *need* to subscribe to Buchanan's "American Conservative" magazine. Put it on your Christmas list if you're broke. It's better than underwear, I'm telling you!