War, what's it good for?
This is a rant.
The original version of the song mentioned in the title offers "absolutely nothing" as an answer for the question, but we all know that isn't true. A more accurate answer can be found in Laibach's version.. "GM, IBM, Newsweek, CNN..." War is good for publicity. War is good for international corporations. War is good for commerce.
Usually the only party who really wins in a war is the one who sold the guns to the warring factions and didn't take part in the war itself. Often the same people sell guns to both/all sides. In terms of publicity there are more winners. It doesn't matter if you really won the war, if you had a crushing advantage in numbers or if you were hopelessly outnumbered.. it's all about how it is presented in media.
Anybody who has seen the movie Wag the Dog has an idea what this is all about. In the film, the President of USA is caught in a sex scandal, which threatens to crash his public appeal, thus preventing him to be re-elected. A group of people cook up a made-up war to boost the President's popularity. A strong leader during troubled times helps people forget such things as scandals. The film came out in 1997.
All this would have been just a ludicrous fantasy, but the following year saw the eruption of a scandal very similar to the one in the film. President Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, thus committing adultery. Shortly after this the President ordered a cruise missile strike to Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming that the bombed factories manufactured chemical weapons and that they had connections to known terrorist factions. It seemed a touch too convenient to be a coincidence. After that, of course, Clinton regained his popularity for being a strong leader and able to make such important decicions as to bomb another country on the other side of the planet for being BAD.
The alledged reasons are generally just that. Somebody is BAD, gives support to BAD people or oppresses GOOD people. This is enough for the glorious and helpful USA to reach out a helping Tomahawk missile and blast the bad people into oblivion. USA has taken a role of World Police, helping small hapless countries, where democracy is threatened. There might be real militant tyrants trying to enslave other countries, but personally i don't think Uncle Sam would not be interested to take part unless there was a significant economical or political advantage to be gained, or taken away from someone else. Being the rescuer of helpless people is a good public reason to wage war, but the real reasons are far more capitalistic.
USA declared war on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Later for producing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists. Now after two wars the small country producing a whole lot of oil is liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but enslaved under USA-dictated financial policy. The whole of Iraq is occupied by American soldiers to enforce democracy and see to that the resources allocated for rebuilding the country are divided as they should be. (that is, most of it goes to American contractors, keeping the cashflow and oilflow inbound) War on terrorism is another good reason to fight EVIL people and get economical and political gain as byproduct.
As a curious sidenote, the US government had been previously giving Iraq considerable monetary support on their war effort against their neighbouring Iran. Only later, when Saddam Hussein got too greedy and stepped on Uncle Sams economical toes by trying to take over Kuwait's oil production, they decided to declare war against Iraq.
Now USA:s old Nemesis Iran has given Uncle Sam a real blow below the belt. Without any terror act, without any military aggression, the whole American economy is at stake. USA has been solving its problems by throwing money at them for too long. When short of money, they have simply printed more. Other countries willingly take dollars, since they are the currency of the oil market. Both New York and London Oil Exchanges trade barrells in dollars. Recently Iran announced starting their own oil exchange, which would be Euro-based. Chances are that many oil-producing arab countries and even China would be glad to trade in Euros, since none of them are really happy about USA:s great influence on the oil market. Most of European countries would probably join in after the oil producers, leaving the New York and London oil exchanges virtually deserted.
This would lead to a massive drop in dollar's exchange value. Many countries would return the dollars to USA and demand other currency in stead, but USA has no financial means to comply for that. They have simply too much money abroad to answer for. All this would be an economical catastrophe for the USA, so they can't allow it to happen. But this is capitalism. This is free commerce.. USA can't fight a war against that, since their own economy is wholly based on free enterprise and free commerce. They have to come up with another reason. How about nuclear weapons? Weapons of mass destruction are always a good reason to start a war. Even if there aren't any. There is always a chance that there MIGHT be. Iran has a nuclear programme. So, they must be planning on manufacturing nuclear weapons. BAD Iranian people. They can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they are BAD and unreliable, giving support to terrorists AND they even worship the wrong god. EVIL people. Only GOOD and reliable countries such as USA should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. USA would never actually use their nuclear weapons unless they really, really have to. Like when some country is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction in an intent to launch an attack on the USA or giving them to a terrorist faction for that purpose or supports them in aquiring such weapons for that purpose. In that case, as a "Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike" could be launched to thwart any immediate threat to the USA.
How's that for tyranny and despotism? My guess is that if Iran starts their own Oil Exchange, USA will do their best to come up with a reason good enought to start a full scale war there to regain control of oil prices.
Hermann Gring (Hitler's Reich-marshall) said in Nrnberg trials after WWII that "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
</rant>
<edit: fixed typos>
This is a rant.
The original version of the song mentioned in the title offers "absolutely nothing" as an answer for the question, but we all know that isn't true. A more accurate answer can be found in Laibach's version.. "GM, IBM, Newsweek, CNN..." War is good for publicity. War is good for international corporations. War is good for commerce.
Usually the only party who really wins in a war is the one who sold the guns to the warring factions and didn't take part in the war itself. Often the same people sell guns to both/all sides. In terms of publicity there are more winners. It doesn't matter if you really won the war, if you had a crushing advantage in numbers or if you were hopelessly outnumbered.. it's all about how it is presented in media.
Anybody who has seen the movie Wag the Dog has an idea what this is all about. In the film, the President of USA is caught in a sex scandal, which threatens to crash his public appeal, thus preventing him to be re-elected. A group of people cook up a made-up war to boost the President's popularity. A strong leader during troubled times helps people forget such things as scandals. The film came out in 1997.
All this would have been just a ludicrous fantasy, but the following year saw the eruption of a scandal very similar to the one in the film. President Bill Clinton was accused of having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, thus committing adultery. Shortly after this the President ordered a cruise missile strike to Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming that the bombed factories manufactured chemical weapons and that they had connections to known terrorist factions. It seemed a touch too convenient to be a coincidence. After that, of course, Clinton regained his popularity for being a strong leader and able to make such important decicions as to bomb another country on the other side of the planet for being BAD.
The alledged reasons are generally just that. Somebody is BAD, gives support to BAD people or oppresses GOOD people. This is enough for the glorious and helpful USA to reach out a helping Tomahawk missile and blast the bad people into oblivion. USA has taken a role of World Police, helping small hapless countries, where democracy is threatened. There might be real militant tyrants trying to enslave other countries, but personally i don't think Uncle Sam would not be interested to take part unless there was a significant economical or political advantage to be gained, or taken away from someone else. Being the rescuer of helpless people is a good public reason to wage war, but the real reasons are far more capitalistic.
USA declared war on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Later for producing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists. Now after two wars the small country producing a whole lot of oil is liberated from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but enslaved under USA-dictated financial policy. The whole of Iraq is occupied by American soldiers to enforce democracy and see to that the resources allocated for rebuilding the country are divided as they should be. (that is, most of it goes to American contractors, keeping the cashflow and oilflow inbound) War on terrorism is another good reason to fight EVIL people and get economical and political gain as byproduct.
As a curious sidenote, the US government had been previously giving Iraq considerable monetary support on their war effort against their neighbouring Iran. Only later, when Saddam Hussein got too greedy and stepped on Uncle Sams economical toes by trying to take over Kuwait's oil production, they decided to declare war against Iraq.
Now USA:s old Nemesis Iran has given Uncle Sam a real blow below the belt. Without any terror act, without any military aggression, the whole American economy is at stake. USA has been solving its problems by throwing money at them for too long. When short of money, they have simply printed more. Other countries willingly take dollars, since they are the currency of the oil market. Both New York and London Oil Exchanges trade barrells in dollars. Recently Iran announced starting their own oil exchange, which would be Euro-based. Chances are that many oil-producing arab countries and even China would be glad to trade in Euros, since none of them are really happy about USA:s great influence on the oil market. Most of European countries would probably join in after the oil producers, leaving the New York and London oil exchanges virtually deserted.
This would lead to a massive drop in dollar's exchange value. Many countries would return the dollars to USA and demand other currency in stead, but USA has no financial means to comply for that. They have simply too much money abroad to answer for. All this would be an economical catastrophe for the USA, so they can't allow it to happen. But this is capitalism. This is free commerce.. USA can't fight a war against that, since their own economy is wholly based on free enterprise and free commerce. They have to come up with another reason. How about nuclear weapons? Weapons of mass destruction are always a good reason to start a war. Even if there aren't any. There is always a chance that there MIGHT be. Iran has a nuclear programme. So, they must be planning on manufacturing nuclear weapons. BAD Iranian people. They can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they are BAD and unreliable, giving support to terrorists AND they even worship the wrong god. EVIL people. Only GOOD and reliable countries such as USA should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. USA would never actually use their nuclear weapons unless they really, really have to. Like when some country is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction in an intent to launch an attack on the USA or giving them to a terrorist faction for that purpose or supports them in aquiring such weapons for that purpose. In that case, as a "Pre-emptive Nuclear Strike" could be launched to thwart any immediate threat to the USA.
How's that for tyranny and despotism? My guess is that if Iran starts their own Oil Exchange, USA will do their best to come up with a reason good enought to start a full scale war there to regain control of oil prices.
Hermann Gring (Hitler's Reich-marshall) said in Nrnberg trials after WWII that "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
</rant>
<edit: fixed typos>
VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
happy birthday