*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

In a way that is true.

I agree that people want government and that even if incredible prosperity at the hands of totally free markets was handed to every living soul on the planet on a silver platter, most of the world would SWIFTLY return to wanting to have states that promise to protect them and promise to help them.

This is one reason governments need to maintain a constant threat by "enemy" states. If every nation got along just fine, government would be dangerously close to redundant. Certainly militrary would be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is one reason governments need to maintain a constant threat by "enemy" states. If every nation got along just fine, government would be dangerously close to redundant. Certainly militrary would be.

Gov'ts exist at more than just the national level, and they deal with different issues, many of which are based around defining justice and providing/maintaining infrastructure. Even at the national level, protection from enemies is not the whole story.

[Poopadoop]

This is one reason governments need to maintain a constant threat by "enemy" states. If every nation got along just fine, government would be dangerously close to redundant. Certainly militrary would be.

War is more or less a constant though,so there's no reason to think we'll ever reach a point where every nation just gets along just fine. There's plenty of real threats out there; you don't need to manufacture them unless you're promoting war for shady reasons (e.g., Iraq War II).

[OngBonga]

Perhaps war is a constant because it's good business. And by business, I mean the kind of business that politicians and generals invest in.

For example, the colonel who analysed the nerve agent allegedly used in Syria on behalf of the British Government, he owns a company that specialises in chemical warefare defence. In Wiltshire, no less. Over $100m in contracts with USA and UK military, his company boasts.

That one guy, that one sample, that potential conflict of interest, and we're forming foreign policy towards Assad based on that anlysis.

The British government know exactly what they're doing.

On a related subject, you following this Sarkozy thing? He is in DEEP SHIT. Word has it he directly ordered the killing of Gadaffi, in an attempt to silence him about these allegations of dirty Libyan money that are now surfacing. Tony Bliar is neck deep in this too, there's potentially dodgy Libyan money going his way too, this is big big news. The events that led to the toppling of Gadaffi were French-led, with direct UK and USA involvement. It was a NATO operation. BBC haven't got much to say about it though.

War is good for business, at least for those who are in control of militaries, that's why it happens.

[wufwugy]

Perhaps war is a constant because it's good business. And by business, I mean the kind of business that politicians and generals invest in.

For example, the colonel who analysed the nerve agent allegedly used in Syria on behalf of the British Government, he owns a company that specialises in chemical warefare defence. In Wiltshire, no less. Over $100m in contracts with USA and UK military, his company boasts.

That one guy, that one sample, that potential conflict of interest, and we're forming foreign policy towards Assad based on that anlysis.

The British government know exactly what they're doing.

On a related subject, you following this Sarkozy thing? He is in DEEP SHIT. Word has it he directly ordered the killing of Gadaffi, in an attempt to silence him about these allegations of dirty Libyan money that are now surfacing. Tony Bliar is neck deep in this too, there's potentially dodgy Libyan money going his way too, this is big big news. The events that led to the toppling of Gadaffi were French-led, with direct UK and USA involvement. It was a NATO operation. BBC haven't got much to say about it though.

War is good for business, at least for those who are in control of militaries, that's why it happens.

Ironically, if these warmongers were anything like all the warmongers of pre-modern history, the war they conduct would be very bad for business because they would all be dead.

Warmongers of pre-modern history had real skin in the game, and they died when they fucked up. Contemporary warmongers from the West have zero skin in the game and they suffer near no consequence when their opinions get others killed.