General Question

kevbo's avatar

Would you support naked geopolitical aggression on the part of the U.S. military industrial complex if the messaging was honest and straightforward?

Asked by kevbo (25667points) August 17th, 2008

I realize the POV is biased towards conspiracy or whatever, but I mean this as a hypothetical exercise—sort of an extrapolation of the “You can’t handle the truth!” moment from “A Few Good Men.”

For example, “We are attacking x, y & z countries because control of their oil reserves really are vital to the long term security interests of the United States (and we’ll probably profit from it).” Or, “We are controlling and profiting from the drug trade to relieve taxpayer burden for ‘off the books’ secret operations and to bolster the US economy (your job and 401(k)) by laundering drug money through public corporations.” Or, “We do know that genocide is happening in x African nation, but we can’t afford to provide (or just aren’t interested in providing) assistance because we really need to focus on nations that have something to do with our national security interests.” Or, “We’ll give you just enough infrastructure to keep you from revolting, but the rest is going into our pockets and the pockets of our friends because that’s just the way it works.” Or, “We are controlling the media and suspending your constitutional rights so that we can control the entire spectrum of dissent—from terrorist to peace activist—because it helps us get these things done more efficiently and without penalty.”

Would you support actions such as these if they were described honestly?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

7 Answers

augustlan's avatar

Um, no. However, I don’t support these things when they are presented dishonestly either. You just have to be able to see through the BS.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Wouldn’t that take all the fun out of it?

I think that even politicians need to kid themselves that they are doing these things for “the right reasons” even if there are some potentially underhand benefits from a course of action.

galileogirl's avatar

The only naked geopolitical aggression I would support is if all the participants were unarmed and naked.

galileogirl's avatar

And included the politicians who supported it.

susanc's avatar

It would help. I can imagine supporting policies that were hard-nosed but transparent.
Having grownups talk to us as if we were grownups would be a very interesting experiment.

marinelife's avatar

No, of course not.

mammal's avatar

I think that the US Can get away with murder but a direct admission like that would be virtually a fascist declaration. Not sure the populace that are stupefied on junk food and violent entertainment, is going to counter effect the dynamic opposition to such blatant self serving aggression.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther