POLITICS: Rush Limbaugh said that the wars never end because too many people profit from them....do you agree, or is he just a pill popper?

10 Answers

  • 4 weeks ago
    Best Answer

    There's a lot to it. It's true in some cases.

  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    Not a matter of agreement, it is a fact.

    Congressmen get kickbacks or future employment offers from lobbyists.

    That is where the term "Military/Industrial Complex" comes from.

    The US economy would tank without the Arms Industry.

    The US economy will drop if Harris/Francis O's Gun Grab goes through too.

  • 4 weeks ago

    There's an element of that in operation, yes.

    The more accurate answer as to why, however, is that The Enemy is dictating the terms of War to us.

    They are making us fight "their fight," instead of us just bombing the f@ck out of them and rolling in with legions of tanks, like in the days of yore.

    It's Vietnam all over again...and you know how that turned out.

    "You will never defeat us unless you are willing to stay here and eat rice for a hundred years."

    Tour of Duty

  • 4 weeks ago

    Oh sure, I agree with that.........but of course, Rush is no doubt one of those people profitting......and it's probably what keeps his BS show on the air.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 weeks ago

    No I think it's very naive to think that's the major cause. Securing energy supplies and then cleaning up the horrendous unindented consequences have been the drivers of US conflicts in recent decades.

  • ioerr
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    the wars never end, because if you want to maintain the cushy, materialist lifestyle you've enjoyed since around the end of ww2, well that depends completely on us dominance of international trade.

    the us attained this dominance kind of by default after ww2, as so many of the other potential competitors had so recently got done bombing the literal snot out of all their major industrial centers, or had them bombed by us, while we suffered nothing in the way of such damage to infrastructure ourselves. oh and of course so much of the rest of the world was so obligingly walling itself behind "iron curtains" and so on, leaving the bulk of the playground, to us.

    so anyways, if you really like that nice situation you got there, with its massive, absolutely massive requirements in raw material and energy and cheap labor, and stuff, you'd better get your nice young cannon fodder out there on a regular basis, hadn't you

    the major problem with our operations today, "in the context of that paradigm," as i guess you could say, whatever the hell "paradigm" means, would have more to do with sheer incompetence of the execution, rather than with any question of the necessity of such efforts in general being made, and stuff.

    of course.... you *could*.... look into adapting your industries and technologies so as obviate the necessity of various such operations.... but... well.... we already know how yall folks feel about that, now don't we.

  • 4 weeks ago

    I'd like to know how many of the Democrats are invested in the military industrial complex in some manner .

  • 4 weeks ago

    You decide.

    Does it make sense?

    The military–industrial complex (MIC) is an informal alliance between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.[1][2][3][4] A driving factor behind this relationship between the government and defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.[5] The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it is most prevalent due to close links between defense contractors, the Pentagon and politicians[6][7] and gained popularity after a warning on its detrimental effects in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.[8][9]


    Source(s): bisexual Christian
  • 4 weeks ago

    thats common sense, what do you think 9/11 was for??

  • 4 weeks ago

    Now that I agree with. One for Rush.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.