Not just Iraq, my preciousessss, look at how much money the USA made from supplying Britain in WW2, and Europe in WW1. As was shown on tele yesterday it was the American stock market, from British banking investments, that supplied MOST of the money that Britain spent to buy war materiels. I just wonder, if Pearl Harbour had not happened, whether USA would have ever given lives instead of making profit. The dollar is the GOD. The people die. The fat cats get fatter. We just never learn to see when they are manipulating us.
2007-11-11 01:41:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
OF COURSE IT IS WAR IS GOOD FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTS.....and so was the Civil War.....Just because someone makes a profit does not mean the war should not be fought.....Are you suggesting we should NOT have fought the Civil War and freed the slaves because someone made money from it? Do you think because the Military Industrial Complex made money from World War Two we should not have answered Japan attack on Pearl Harbor? Just because Boeing Aircraft made huge profits we should not have fought Germany and stopped the Holocaust?
2007-11-10 21:16:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kojak 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Absolutely NONE whatsoever! Actually big defense contractors make less during wartime than in peacetime. Reason! All the big money is spent on reasearch and development after a war and after the DOD has determined what works, what doesn't work and what they think they will need for the next war.
2007-11-10 20:17:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elliott J 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Well if you consider that the largest defense contract out now,
Is for the F-22
And no F-22's are being used in Iraq.
That kind of blows that theory away.
The other large defense contract is for the mine resistant vechicles,
Except those company's never had a large defense contract before, they were speciality vechicle suppliers before.
2007-11-10 23:59:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A good question that doesn't get asked (or answered) enough.
It is a huge issue, and defense contractors have a big influence on politicians.
2007-11-11 23:00:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by yumlick23 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would love to say none, but frankly, with the amount of civilian contractors running around over here making 3-10 times what i am, i get a little suspicious......
2007-11-10 23:41:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Justin J 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The war in Iraq is all but political, it is commercial. just ask your self how many American firms have been opened in Iraq. What is the one and only interest in Iraq. Why haven't they left jet.
2007-11-10 20:49:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Thousands of innocent people have to die for others pleasure and business. No respect for humand life or all other living creatures. The world is coming to an end.
2007-11-10 21:31:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by live and let live 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
What is composed of recommendations as we talk is the U.S. employing the Gulf of Tonkin as a reason to pass to conflict w/Vietnam- As vessel interior the gulf initially mentioned being hit by employing torpedoes, and a few a million-2 hours later mentioned there replaced right into a mistake, that they weren't attacked in any respect. however the president and Robert McNamara (secretary of state) have been already making plans conflict in Vietnam. i've got self belief the terror of Communism replaced into in the back of this, i'm unsure. Then we've what out good lies by employing the Bush administration, to create public concern, and so help to pass to conflict in Iraq. I from what I even have examine/heard on the information there replaced into direct attempt by employing the President to stress CIA into giving this form of counsel that they needed fairly than extremely certainty. this counsel is the main regularly occurring. yet there are greater diffused or obtrusive assessment that has to do why we went to conflict in any respect - in neither case replaced into the U.S. in extremely risk. What have been the motivations for going to conflict in Vietnam? - i don't be responsive to financially, yet relatively the "chilly conflict" had lots to do with it. The "chilly conflict" i've got self belief replaced into in basic terms 2 governments combating for ability, and money, fairly than citizen risk-free practices. To me it form of feels obtrusive that the Iraq conflict replaced into in accordance with money, and native ability and impression. additionally in Iraq and Vietnam U.S. voters have been difficulty to severe propaganda that inspired us to assist the conflict. I even have seen a number of documentaries on the two matters. under is a Wikipedia link with regards to the Gulf of Tonkin. you additionally must hit upon information with regards to the phony intel records claiming that Iraq replaced into attempting to purchase centrifuge stuff from Nigeria. additionally the saddest factor... Is that many civilians died, additionally i could additionally study the character of the NVA and the insurgents combating in Iraq. How lots administration did North Vietnam have over there military, did the NVA kill civilians, have been there assaults on civilians as there have been in Iraq.
2016-10-16 02:43:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Business with the state's money is profitable in any country.
2007-11-10 20:17:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by adrian p 1
·
1⤊
0⤋