General Question
Would you support naked geopolitical aggression on the part of the U.S. military industrial complex if the messaging was honest and straightforward?
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?
7 Answers
Answer this question
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.