General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThose whose jobs depend on maintaining, "The military/industrial/congressional complex."
The Russian Federation has become an all-consuming boogeyman for many Pentagon and intelligence service employees charged with advising the U. S. government in regard to foreign policy. Russia is an international competitor with the United States in the fields of commerce and political influence, but is that really a valid reason to roundly demonize her leadership and put our national military on a nearly paranoid footing, with sky-high expectations of some kind of a Cold War style "sneak attack" from the implacable, though illusionary, "Russian Empire?" In the article quoted below, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi offers a imminently plausible explanation for this wide-spread logical disconnect.
The Pentagon.
Sabotage: US Officials 'Distort Image of Russia' to Keep Their Own Jobs
A whole array of US experts and officials create and use Russia's hostile image in order to hold down their jobs, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, who is now executive director of the Council for the National Interest, said in his article published by the opinion journal American Conservative. He said that when in Moscow, he often met ordinary Russians who asked him why Washington hates Russians so much and "why does the American press seemingly have nothing good to say about them?" Giraldi admitted that he eventually failed give a clear-cut answer, even though he tried to attribute the problem to the political situation in Russia.
Touching upon the negative stance on Russia, Giraldi acknowledged that "there are many older Americans entrenched in the media and government as well as in the plentitude of think tanks who will always regard Russia as the enemy. And then there are the more cunning types who always need the threat of an enemy to keep their well-paid jobs in the government itself and also within the punditry, both of which rely on the health and well-being of the military-industrial-congressional complex," he said.
He also wondered why those in the White House and the US media fail to realize the fact that "a good relationship with Russia is indispensable."
Giraldi touted Russia as a good partner in Syria and a driving force to hold current talks on resolving the Syrian gridlock. In addition, Russia "has consistently been a reliable ally against terrorism, in recognition of its own vulnerability to ISIS and other Islamic militants, One does not have to love Mother Russia or Vladimir Putin to appreciate that it is in America's interest to develop a cooperative relationship based on shared interests," Giraldi pointed out.
(snip)
Read more at: http://sputniknews.com/world/20160110/1032897666/united-states-russia-image.html
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I could hardly agree more, cantbeserious.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)And I'm tired of all the fear mongering STILL in the press about Russia and/or Putin.
Our record on invading countries is sadly impressive!
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)terrorism - liberalism - these are the problems
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)subsided. And corporations diminished. ... etc.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The profit mark-up on all of those jet fighters, missiles and tanks would fall like a stone if anything resembling international peace were to actually break-out. The promise of peaceful prosperity, wasted at the end of the Cold War, might even be finally realized.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Did a brilliant expose of the arms industry, it's a little bit dated now, but still very relevant.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)But still right on target.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Two percent growth wouldn't be bad. Let alone the fact of the possibility of stimulating growth through means other than building ever more and more expensive firecrackers to be blown up. There are other ways to generate enthusiasm and make reasonable profits, without causing the rest of humanity to hate and fear the very name of our country.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Who could imagine such a thing? Democrats.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Simply eloquent, Octafish.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)China comes in at #3 with a mere 5% but that's rising swiftly, Billboard would say they are #3 with a bullet and in this case it would not be a metaphor. And of course the financial powers in these countries are the sales and finance teams for the arms dealers.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)All so some sociopaths in uniform can exercise their God-like powers of life-and-death over fellow human beings they dislike or fear.
Sure is one hell of a way to make a damn buck. (sigh)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Reading about this from RT is like reading about this from the Lockheed Martin Newsletter.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We have thousands of people telling us about what the Russians are doing wrong. Why should I bother to pile on there?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Why should I bother to pile on there?"
A creative rationalize for your conspicuous and relevant absence. It's a somewhat clever way to maintain the pretense of objectivity.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't forget to check for commies hiding under those beds!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You are going to reveal your true agenda.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's the Middle East. As soon as the USSR collapsed, Poppy Bush started finding us another enemy so his buddies could keep making money.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)First we encouraged Saddam by having our ambassador to Baghdad tell him we didn't care what he did in regard to Kuwait. Then when he invaded, we got all righteous about "international aggression" and attacked Iraq in order to "defend Kuwaiti freedom and sovereignty."
Worked just like a charm too (at least it did briefly).
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)In your attempt to slander an American citizen and former intelligence analyst as a "Putinist source."
Or didn't you even bother to read the first paragraph of what I posted before starting in?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Just be sure not to try and involve my country in a shooting war with the Russian Federation based on that kind of strategic wishful thinking.
Seriously, please don't even try. I want to be around to see Spring come again.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)When it was the USSR it was even more of a paper tiger because the different nationalities and ethnicities hated each other and in some cases even lacked a common language.
Russia... meh.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Napoleon Bonaparte claimed: "The Russian Empire will shatter with my first blow, and the Czar will be murdered in a palace coup shortly thereafter." In fact, Czar Alexander presided over the peace conference in Paris which sent the defeated and deposed Napoleon into exile.
Hitler promised his doubtful generals that a war against the Soviet Union would be a walk-over. He noted that a year earlier, "They barely even managed to defeat the Finns!" Hitler would die by his own hand only four years later, as Soviet soldiers closed in on the last few hundred yards that still remained of his once vaunted "Thousand Year Reich."
A century before either of the above examples, the Swedes' Charles the XII was decisively defeated in battle and forced to flee into Turkish exile as his whole "Nordic Empire" was cast into ruin because of his vain attempt to conquer Peter the Great's Russia.
Now you are pedaling the same misconceptions in 2016? Why, in the name of all things redundant, do something like that?
"Rule one on page one of the Book of War is: Don't march on Moscow."
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)So throw Rule One, on Page One, OUT.
Paper tiger. That's all Russia will ever be. I'm sorry but that's the way it is.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Since that quote is from one of the World's foremost leaders of mechanized troops. He commanded Great Britain's armored divisions in North Africa, Italy and Western Europe during WWII.
He also knew very well what he was talking about.
dmr
(28,349 posts)Russia got her dander up, and rightfully so when Napoleon & then Hitler decided to take on that massive nation.
I've never been afraid of Russia. Even during air raid drills as a little girl hiding beneath my desk at school. My dad told me Russia would never attack America anymore than we would attack them. WWII made sure of that, he said. They knew our strength, & no one wanted another Japan.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Our World needs a great deal less of armies marching on places generally.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Have you heard of the Tsar Bomba? 30 mile blast radius. Russia has the largest H-bombs ever made. They also have a new Thor nuclear missile that zigzags during flight, rendering anti-ballistic systems useless. Paper tiger? Russia would wipe the floor with us. We don't even have a functioning rocket. We have to hitch hike our way to space on Russian rockets. This kind of dangerous jingo you promote is uninformed prattle.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Russia's conventional military is a joke, other than a few modern weapons systems, their military is a hollow shell of it's former Soviet self, their Navy is a collection of rust buckets, their Army is a bunch of druken conscripts, their Air Force is probably the most capable of the services, but it wouldn't stand a chance against the US Air Force.
The US nuclear arsenal consists of the Minuteman Missiles, which are still quite capable, the Peacekeeper ICMB's, which are deadly accurate, and the Navy's Trident II SLBM's, which the Russian Navy can't find when out to sea.
Your whole hypothesis about the Russian military vs. the US military is a joke.
The point is mutually assured destruction. After all, when the fighting is over there would be nothing left in America worth defending. We are unable to reverse engineer the Saturn 5 rocket, made by nazis, which means that we have a half century of brain drain from this country. When are we going to get a decent rocket? The next "operation paperclip?"
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Russia most certainly wouldn't wipe America off the floor, in a nuclear war, there would be no winners, just a smoking ruin of a world.
WTH are you talking about not engineering the Saturn V rocket?
It was used by NASA to launch the Apollo crews into space and the moon,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V
The largest production model of the Saturn family of rockets, the Saturn V was designed under the direction of Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, with Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM as the lead contractors. Von Braun's design was based in part on his work on the Aggregate series of rockets, especially the A-10, A-11, and A-12, in Germany during World War II.
To date, the Saturn V remains the only launch vehicle able to transport human beings beyond low Earth orbit. A total of 24 astronauts were launched to the Moon, three of them twice, in the four years spanning December 1968 through December 1972.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Von Braun was a nazi "immigrant," brought over specifically for rocket making. His contribution to the Holocaust was overlooked. The wiki you posted is informative but does not address the fact that we are unable to reverse engineer the Saturn 5. We are spending over half of our GNP on the military and its turning America into a third world nation. On your conventional warfare point I would concede, but only tentatively, because our forces are spread way too thin. Even if we could conquer Russia proper we would never be able to effectively occupy it. Its all hypothetical though as Russia would nuke us immediately if we dared to attack them or violate their borders. It will be proxy wars and continual bleeding of the taxpayer to make contractors rich and they cannot even deliver the goods, like the F-35.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Let them have Eastern Europe back if they want it.
Then contain them the way we did for decades. Russia has ONE aircraft carrier in service. Do you realize how important it is to be able to project air power across the sea? I've seen the US do it, up close and personal, like from the flight deck of three aircraft carriers. Hell the Russians have to invade helpless countries just for warm-water ports.
Read my lips... Paper. Tiger. Nothing to fear. Let Putin whose claim to fame is pulling the fingernails of interrogation subjects for the KGB rattle his saber. Ignore it, and he'll take his saber and go home. Not before bullying defenseless countries in his neighborhood to be sure, but go home he will.
Tsar Bomba? LOLOfuckingL. It was a one-off thing detonated when I was five months old. I'm 54 now. How would they deliver something like that? Slow boat from China?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)H-bombs ever made were made by Russia. They have one for every American city over 50,000 population. So its not a one time deal. They can deliver these bombs by ICBM, cruise missiles and submarine launched missiles along our coasts. We have no defense for such an attack.
The op is saying we are wasting our time and resources creating enemies where they don't exist. It reminds me of Ferguson Mo. cops who made a business out of creating so called criminals.
Also, I just don't get the agitated responses about Russia and their media. Our media is worse. Look what they did to Iraq. No amount of LOLing and cursing is going to change the facts. I'm immune to commissar tactics.
Rex
(65,616 posts)you have to invent all kinds of industries to keep you employed. The US doesn't just use Russia alone...maybe Pooty Poot ain't been paying attention, but we pimp terrorism as our prime need to waste trillions of dollars a year to make sure military contractors can buy that second yacht!
Needs...wants...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You expect me to take your comment seriously?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Seriously, how odd. I post whatever the fuck I want to and could not give a shit if anyone even pays any attention.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I will know to not take your comments seriously.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and we're supposed to take YOU seriously?
What a hoot.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)And, usually, those ignored by our government-cowed mass media. I have found Russian media coverage much more likely to cover corruption and misdeeds by Western governments, such as our own. Being genuinely concerned with those matters myself, I naturally turn to Russian sources for the best information and insights.
One more thing, and let me be frank about this, the very fact that you and others like you are stalking and harassing me on DU for posting from Russian news sources is among the biggest reasons I will continue to do so. I know what that attempt at censorship is, and I am resolved to resist it.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)so don't be surprised when you're called out on your blatant agenda.
Interesting that the only stories you post are either pro Russian or anti US, yeah, no agenda at all.
Nobody's censoring you, get over yourself.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I'm more the target of one, as you know.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Get over yourself.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You realize this is the Fox News of Russia, right?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)That is proof of an almost complete lack of real knowledge concerning the news source in question. One should really learn a little about Sputnik News' cutting edge coverage before trying to pile-on with the character assassination.
(sigh)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)purpose of spreading Russian propaganda throughout the world.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)A belief which is not, I should add, shared by many millions of Sputnik viewers, living in nearly ever country in the World.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)And you wonder why you're viewed with such suspicion here? Consider this, the only sources you ever use are either Russian propaganda, or US bashing "news" sources.
Makes one wonder what your true agenda is here.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)For weeks now you've been claiming you knew!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I have repeatedly stated that I am not in the service of any government or nongovernmental organization, so let me repeat my direct question (which requires a direct answer from you):
Are you calling me a liar?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Take it any way you want.