Posted by Alexander from 126.96.36.199.cfl.rr.com (188.8.131.52) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 at 7:16PM :
In Reply to: United Enron posted by farid from customer-148-233-71-70.uninet.net.mx (184.108.40.206) on Sunday, May 25, 2003 at 7:04PM :
In the turn of the twentieth century, the US opted to use a "defense contract" for regular use throughout its future. This defense contract has been in use and existence for more than 100 years now. Besides a few aggressive actions(a few may be a high understatement, but the issue here is not the quantity of aggressive actions, but the one in particular I am referring to) like Tripoli in the earlier years of the US "existence" since its "constitution", the US did not fully engage in offensive skirmishes until the 1900 and late 1800s. All throughout US history however, the US has been ever aggressive and violent to the oppressed, whether be in the US itself or abroad.
This defense contract is what runs the US, and brings in the real dough for the top "officials" in "government." This policy of making war a business is nothing new, it is simply that now it is much more in the open and constant because(as it would appear) because now there is not the usual "minor" "resistance"(or at least what qualifies as resistance in the US, as opposed to dying for your beliefs out in the streets, here they sip sodas and eat french fries while yelling at the TV(not much more than that as far as resistance here goes)...kinda makes you admire those Cubans and Iranians eh?
Anyway, so there is less resistance, and the people in the government are also more aggressive and so we have the defense contract at full payment. Of course, when there is war, war companies like Lockheed and Boeing get rich(watch their stocks), and everyone else goes through financial troubles.
Hmm...hope I didn't leave anything out- that was a mouthful
-- signature .
Post a Followup