Shit Happens


                Just have a few female friends on facebook and I’m sure you have seem these memes that mention in one way or another that “Everything Happens for a Reason,” or they are promoting the idea of Karma.  This blog here is to tell how most of philosophies are complete bullshit.  A philosophy is supposed to be a guidebook on how to live your life.  Neither of these outlooks are anyway to live your life.  If you want to truly be the best you can be, you have to see that life is one big poker game.  A game of chance mixed with the skill of how to play the cards you are dealt.

                Let’s first dispel karma.  Now, most of the people who believe in this—and there are a fair share of men who believe in it too—probably have no idea how Karma is really supposed to work.  It is how the life you led in your past life will affect you in the next one.  Not how if you’re a cheater, your next girlfriend will be ugly.  When did this idea of karma replace the tried and true saying of, “Life is not fair?”  That was the saying I grew up with and I always expected.  I just wanted to get more than I deserved.  Now all of a sudden life is fair?  One event disproves that—The Holocaust.  If Karma exists, than you believe those six million Jews deserved to die?  They had some bad karma?  How about the parents of the dead children from the Sandy Hook Tragedy, and their grief?  How about the kids themselves?  They deserved to die?  What bad Karma could a five year old have possibly committed?  Now, as a scholar of history I can tell you the only universal truth history tells us is that life is not fair.  So do not think that there is this force of Karma and people will get what they deserve.  This doesn’t mean people always get away with shit.  And it doesn’t mean that people who work hard won’t be rewarded.  It just means that not every wrong is righted, and not every good deed is rewarded.  Karma does not exist, and to use this term for simply the sake of your relationships issues is both immature and ignorant.  So read a history book, watch the news, and realize Karma does not exist.

                Everything happens for a reason, however is a little more of a complex argument, then just simply proving that life is not fair.  This view holds some credibility for people because it is comforting, we have our own experiences from our past, and there may actually be some divine intervention to what does occur in this world.  Let start with explaining why this outlook is so comforting.

                “Everything happens for a reason,” is a great coping mechanism.  It relieves us of guilt for our actions.  We fail at a relationship—he wasn’t the one.  We lose a job—there are better jobs for you.  This everything happens for a reason makes us feel great even when we fail.  This term is in fact usually used when someone falls onto hard times.  But the truth is sometimes shit just happens.  This idea helps us to feel comfort when we go through a tough time.  We are going through this for a reason, to learn, or for something better to happen.  When one door closes another door opens.  It’s a positive spin, but it is still a spin nonetheless.  We all like to believe we have some great destiny that we are striving to.  And one day we will meet our soulmate.  But there are no soulmates.  People die alone.  The divorce rate is over fifty percent.  With all the suffering all over the world in underdeveloped countries, you think there is some divine plan so that you can find ever-lasting love, a better job?  Why do innocent people in the Middle lose their children to drone strikes?  Why do Africans starve, but you don’t have a nice house? No, everything does not happen for a reason.  And what’s wrong with taking responsibilities for your actions.  Rise and fall, but take credit for both.  Trust me, when things are going good for you, it feels better to say, “I earned it.”

                This argument however, also gets some traction when people are successful.  We look at our current job and say damn am I happy I lost that other shitty job.  We find ourselves in love and say God damn I’m glad my ex broke up with me.  Even if you are in a happy place, you look back at instances you thought were devastating, and now find yourself in a better place and say, “Everything happens for a reason.”  The problem with this outlook is that we do not give us any credit for this amazing miracle called “learning.”  Yes, people, we do learn from our mistakes.  Why are you in a better job—because you got smarter, more experienced, and hungrier for a better opportunity.  Why are you in a better relationship—you learned from your past love mistakes, you know what you do not want, and know how to weed them out earlier.  You also became a better boyfriend/girlfriend.  This is not things happening for a reason, this is you learning from your mistakes.  If you do not learn from them, then you are insane.  Insanity is making the same mistake and expecting a different result.  Learning and discovery are all a part of life.  It is far better to lose someone and find yourself, than the other way around.  Well, that’s all you did here with your love life.  Maybe your first marriage failed and your second worked not because it was meant to happen for a reason.  Maybe you just became a better spouse.

                However, there is a third aspect of this argument that is a little harder to disprove.  Especially if you have any faith in any kind of divine element playing a role in our world.  I am an agnostic, a huge difference from an atheist.  An atheist believes in nothing, and like a religious person, they feel they have all the answers.  I think everyone got it wrong, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing.  We found no life in our solar system, but that doesn’t mean there is no other life in the universe.  Just because every current religion I feel is false, doesn’t mean there isn’t something divine out there pulling certain strings.  Going back to the Holocaust, this horrible genocide did lead to the creation of the state of Israel.  As a historian I can say life isn’t fair, but I can also say that events cause other events to happen.  Also every human being on this earth is alive because two people bumped uglies.  So maybe there is some divine movement in our relationships so that we meet a person we create a life with.  This doesn’t insure any of that fallacy of soulmates and a happy marriage, but sometimes the condom does break, sometimes the pill doesn’t work.  I will admit some things may happen for a reason.  But we cannot live our lives waiting for things to happen.  Expecting things will happen, and just blind faith that everything works out for the best.

                Chance is a major factor in so much more than you can understand and control in this world, and what you can control and understand in this world is the rest of it.  No karma, not everything happens for a reason.  Sometimes people are rewarded and punished for what they do, and sometimes things beyond your control happen and they affect your life.  My religion is pokerinity.  Life is one big poker game.

                If you know anything about the game of poker you know chance is always a factor.  Anytime at a table the worst player who knows the least about odds can beat the best player because the cards fall their way.  But if they play long enough the better player will always win.  You always have to do your best no matter the circumstance.  This way when luck or chance is against you, you can minimize your losses, and when luck or chance is on your side you can make the most of it.  You cannot be afraid, but you also cannot be arrogant.  Pride comes before the fall.  And also like in poker you need to be in control of your emotions, hold back a bit what you’re really thinking.  Have a filter.  With that power you can then also read the emotions and intentions of other people.  With that you may not reach a point you consider yourself successful in life (whatever your standard is) but you will be the best you can possibly be.  Sure, sometimes the cards fall the way they do to teach you a lesson, true.  But most of the time they just fall how they fall and it is up to you to make the most of it.

                Sorry to introduce you to the secret of life.



Dance With Dragons Review



                While a majority of people are getting all excited about the upcoming fourth season of the HBO series Game of Thrones.  Those of us who actually like to read and are fans of the Song of Fire and Ice saga are well past the events that will unfold in the upcoming season.  You know who you are, the only ones who were not shocked when you watched The Red Wedding—because we were shocked when we read it.  So this review is for all of those who have read the latest book Dance with Dragons.  Warning spoilers ahead, so if you are still looking forward to reading it, do not read this review.  If you haven’t read the book but are curious as to if you should read, well if you read the first four this is a no brainer.  I would place this book the third strongest of the books, in descending order: Storm of Swords, Game of Thrones, Dance with Dragons, Clash of Kings, and Feast for Crows.  It is of course a must read for those following the saga.  This blog (or as George R.R. Martin would call it, not a blog) if for those who have read it and would like some perspective on it.  Now, in the form of the good, the bad, and the ugly, let the review begin.

The Good

                Finally characters we give a shit about.  I mean those of you who read Feast of Crows understood that Dance and Feast are actually two parts of the same book and each book covers different sections based on geography and the characters in their respective areas.  This meant that in Feast there was no Jon Snow, Daenerys, or Tyrion—probably the three characters fans care the most about.  Dance follows heavily the viewpoints of these three characters along with the viewpoints of other characters after about two-thirds of the book.  He brings the two narratives together and promises for the following two planned books to never separate the characters again.  Fans of Martin know how faithful he is with his promises though (please sense the sarcasm).  Needless to say for fans of the saga the characters in this book and the plot is a lot more intriguing than that of the previous book, and it ends on an exciting cliffhanger.  Just be prepared to wait another decade for the sixth book in the series.

The Bad  

If you think Stephen King overwrites, than you have not read a novel by Martin.  The length is well of 1000 pages, but only about 600 of them you will give a shit about.  Readers do not need to know every dish that is served for every meal that happens within the story.  Too many times I found myself skipping over immense detail that pertains nothing to the plot.  The book itself seemed to drag, and the plot appeared to run in circles.  This also pertains to the ugly of the book.


The Ugly

                The Meereeneese knot as Martin refers to it was just too much wasted pages.  The whole story of Daenerys was for her to get an army and with her dragons, sail on to conquer the seven kingdoms.  Well she has her army, she has her dragons, she has to opportunity to sail west to Westeros—and she chooses not to.  Instead she chooses to defend a city, marry a man she does not love, for the sake of a slave city that is even far more corrupt than King’s Landing.  Look, we all know Daenerys is going to make it to Westeros and fight for the Iron Throne, why the hell are we wasting time here?  She’s not going to stay, if so, what the hell was the point of her character anyway?  This is excessive overwriting and detail that fails to forward the story.  At the end it shows Martin’s weakness and why it takes him so many years between books.  He has to realize he is telling us a story, not a diary with a day by day account of everything that occurs.  We are five books in now, two more to go.  Fans are clamoring for the ending, let’s get down to the nitty gritty.  Let’s get Daenerys down to King’s Landing, let’s get Bran to wherever he has to go in the North.  Let’s get Stannis on the throne.  Let’s get this ball rolling, and get this story over in two more books.  Let’s not let the HBO series catch up to the books.


                At the end of the day this book is of course a must read for fans of the Song of Fire and Ice Saga, but it could have been better.  It could have been tighter, shorter, and more exciting.  I hope the last two books—and that there will only be two more books—will help bring all the excitement home for a worthy conclusion.


Doctor Sleep Review


                Fair warning there are spoilers ahead.  This review is written more for those who have already read Stephen King’s Doctor Sleep.  For those of you curious if they should read it, I’ll just say this—It’s the fucking sequel to the Shining.  So yes, I recommend this book.  Now with caution to the wind, here comes the review in the form of what is good, bad, and ugly about Doctor Sleep.


The Good.

                It is the fucking sequel to The Shining.  36 years after the first publication of The Shining, the sequel arrives.  The reader gets to learn of what had become of young Danny Torrance, now an adult over thirty years after the events that took place at the Overlook Hotel.  Danny still has the power of The Shining.  He also unfortunately became an alcoholic like his father.  Drinking helps him drown out the power of The Shining that drove him crazy as he got older.  Through the help of Alcoholics Anonymous he became sober and found a job working at a hospice and through the help of a cat that knows when one of the residents time has come, Danny helps to them pass on painlessly to the next world.  This is how he acquired the nickname Doctor Sleep.  The conflict in the story is that his step-niece who also had the power of The Shining, is being hunted down by a group of people known as the True Knot.  The True Knot live off the power of The Shining in little children that they call steam.  They are referred to as a sort of vampires who needs to take this power, this steam, from little children, to give them power and prevent them from aging.  Danny’s step-niece Abra, is so powerful, so full of this steam—more than Danny ever had—that she is their white whale and once they learn of her they have to have her in their crosshairs.  The story’s plot revolves around Danny trying to protect his niece.  It is also cool how the story comes full circle with the climax happening on the land of the burned down Overlook Hotel.  The good about this story is that is makes for a great action-thriller.


The Bad

                This story makes for a great action thriller.   I mean alone it is a cool story, but this isn’t a stand-alone story, this is the fucking sequel to The Shining.  One of the scariest novels ever in print, and I have to admit there isn’t one real scare in the whole book.  First take a look at the antagonists of the story—the True Knot.  They are disguised as elderly people who drive in Winnebagos.  Like there is anything scary to that idea.  That the old people we see at highway rest stops are really steam sucking vampires—c’mon Mr. King you can do better than that.  In fact they are even given funny names like Rose the Hat, Snakebite Andi, Token Charlie, Grandpa Flick, Apron Annie, and Crow Daddy.  They love each other and act like a close knit family.  They are not hard to hate, but they are almost impossible to fear.  I mean why should the reader fear them?  They only attack children with The Shining.  Guess what, I don’t qualify, so let the True Knot roam the highways of the world.  I will not be in their sights.  I have more to fear camping at the wrong lake and a hockey masked killer after me, than these people.  The lack of a genuine fear or thrill is disappointing when you think of the sequel for The Shining.  Even if you don’t fear these antagonists, you still don’t even fear for the protagonists.  In a situation where the True Knot attempts to kidnap Abra, guess what happens.  Danny, with the help of some friends, kills a few members of the True Knot, and Crow who actually does abduct her, is killed by Abra.  Story-telling 101 would suggest that she does get kidnapped and create the suspense to get her back.  But this doesn’t happen.  Abra comes home safe and then Danny completes his plan to destroy all of the True Knot.  Sorry but like how a sequel to Die Hard should have action, a sequel to The Shining should have some frights.

The Ugly

                King has placed himself a little too much into his stories lately.  Any reader of the Dark Tower series will tell you that based on how that saga ended.  He continued to perpetrate that flaw here with the amount of the book dedicated to Alcoholic Anonymous.  It is known that Stephen King drank heavily during the writing of The Shining, and is now a recovering alcoholic—but how or why should this play into the actual story?  Sure Danny’s father was an alcoholic, but the Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, Danny’s struggle to become sober, and his happiness through recovery, for the most part do nothing for the plot and are a waste of print.  I mean the quotes to that start the book are AA quotes.  But the actual experience of Danny in rehab really does not affect the plot.  He does know Abra’s pediatrician because he is also an alcy, but the amount of the book that is focused on the AA experience is a bit much, and really does not help build any form of suspense.  It feels more like King wanted to express his experience with AA, than build some suspense to the story.  Basically this whole book could have been written without Danny ever touching an ounce of alcohol.  That being true, then with so much print given on this storyline it is just a waste.  And detracts from the action-adventure we have here.


                Doctor Sleep is worth a read.  King is still a great story teller—probably one of the best ever.  However, do not expect sleepless nights or memorable scenes like Redrum or those freaky twins.  And that is a letdown because of the horror classic it is a sequel of.  3 out of 5 stars, but a must read for a Stephen King fan, or just a fan of The Shining.         


Hail to Our Caesar

            Fifty years ago on this day America became the next Rome.  Fifty years ago, America went from a republic to an empire.  Fifty years ago today, we killed our Caesar.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy was Julius Caesar for the history of the United States of America.  He wanted to give more to the underprivileged.  He was killed by his own government.  And after his death, his country embarked on creating an empire.  As Americans, what we need to realize now is the path we’re are on, and how to get off of it, before we end up just like Rome.

            Julius Caesar was popular with the plebeians (the lower class Romans).  The plebeians did not like him just because he was a military leader.  They liked him because his policies were doing something for them.  He was for land reform.  Land at the time was controlled by a powerful minority.  Caesar offered to give land from military conquests to the soldiers of Rome.  He also made land owners have to hire free men, as opposed to slaves, for a third of their farm hands.  He gave plebeians an opportunity to own land and to have jobs.  He also increased government posts, including the senate, by a third, in the hope that they would be occupied by plebeians.  These moves of course upset the rich, powerful patrician class.  JFK also wanted to give to those who needed it.  His domestic policy “The New Frontier” wanted to end racial discrimination.  It also included federal funding for the young and old, in education and medical care respectively.  Also toward the end of his presidency he decided U.S. involvement in Vietnam would be a waste of American lives for an unattainable goal.  Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara himself had said that if Kennedy had lived, the United States would not have entered Vietnam—even though many powerful institutions (defense contractors, oil prospectors) stood to make a lot of money off the war.   Kennedy, like Caesar, was for the little man, and put their interests above those of the rich and powerful.  Which is of course why those in power wanted to remove these beloved leaders from power, by any means necessary.      

            No one questions that the senate killed Julius Caesar.  A leader who the common people loved, was killed by the aristocrats in power for their own benefit.  JFK’s assassination as a plot by the government cannot be accepted as a fact.  There is no smoking gun out there that proves without a doubt that the government was behind it.  However, there is more than enough evidence out there that casts doubt on the official report of the Warren Commission.  There are the witnesses in Dealey Plaza that attest that there was more than one shooter.  There is the timing of the three shots that makes it almost impossible that they all came from one Italian Carcano bolt action rifle with such accuracy.  There is the one pristine “magic bullet” that is to be believed passed through seven separate wounds between Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally.  There is also the House of Representatives Select Committee that in 1978 determined that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy.  If his death was a conspiracy, who else could be behind it but elements within the government who need to have it covered up?  2000 years later if the government killed their leader they could not announce it like they did with Caesar.  They have learned from the fate of Brutus and Cassius.

            Caesar and JFK were both loved by their people.  They were probably both killed by factions within their own government.  Their deaths also marked the change in their respective nations.  It is agreed upon by historians that the death of Julius Caesar marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.  Augustus Caesar—the grandnephew of Julius Caesar—became Rome’s first emperor.  America has also become a subtle pseudo-empire in regards to its international relations since the death of Kennedy.  Months after Kennedy’s death the Gulf of Tonkin Crisis occurred.  US ships fired first on North Vietnamese ships, but reported that the North Vietnamese attacked first.  Though Vietnam was never officially declared a war by congress, it became the longest conflict the nation was ever involved in—a span of ten years.  That record would be passed by the current war in Afghanistan.  We invaded Iraq on shaky evidence that has since been proven false.  The military industrial complex now controls our foreign policy.  Before Kennedy’s death no one really questioned our involvement in any war (War of 1812, Mexican War, WWI and WWII).  Since his death every war has been questioned (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).  Like Caesar, Kennedy’s death marked a change in the soul of his nation.  We must hope history does not continue to repeat itself.

            The start of the Roman Empire was also the beginning of the end for Rome.  Some of the issues that led to the fall of Rome are—loss of civic virtue, the weakening of the military, decline of loyalty to the government, wasting of resources, the debt of the lower classes, and political instability—are issues that affect the United States now.  Our military is being stretched to its limits with these constant wars.  The middle class is riddled with debt.  Politically our country is the most divided since the Civil War.  And we are not upholding the best of morals as a nation.  We cannot allow November 22nd 1963 to be the beginning of the end of our nation.  We must find our way back to the path we were on—the best republic in the world—before the death of our Caesar.      



War Inc.

            On that morning of September 11th, 2001 many questions went through Americans’ minds.  Who did this?  Why did they do this?  were some of the commons questions Americans asked.  Almost every American knew the U.S.A. would respond with force.  We thought our response would be powerful, it would be swift—it would be decisive.  We didn’t think it would take years to hunt down Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attacks.  We didn’t think we would also take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  We didn’t think we would be engaged in military conflict in the Middle East for over a decade.  And we didn’t think on the twelfth anniversary of this attack we would be debating about starting a third war in Syria.  Most Americans didn’t think this, but some did.  Some foresaw that this one act of terror as the birth of War Incorporated.  The United States declared a War on Terror.  Not a war against a nation, a regime, but on a military tactic.  Any organization that employs “terrorism” was now our enemy.  Such a vague term that can be applied by our own discretion.  With this declaration how could we ever find ourselves not involved in a conflict somewhere around the globe?  And now with Iraq wrapped up, and troops pulling out of Afghanistan we find ourselves having to get involved in Syria over the deaths of a thousand civilians.  President Obama has promised no troops on the ground, but once we get involved it will only take the death of one American soldier to give the military the option to renege on that pledge.  Getting involved is literally playing with fire.  We are told our involvement is for moral reasons, to support our allies, and to make the situation better.  These reasons are not justified by the facts.  The truth is we are getting involved to keep the war machine going.  To keep War Incorporated in business.

            On August 21th 2013, hundreds of Syrians civilians were killed by the means of the nerve gas Sarin.  It is alleged that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad used the gas in Ghouta, a Damascus Suburb, in opposition controlled neighborhoods.  It is not conclusive that Assad’s regime was behind the attacks.  There is evidence out there to suggest that the rebels were behind the attack to draw western intervention as Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested.  I have no primary source information to accuse one group or the other, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Assad was behind this attack.  That a president of a country has used chemical weapons against his people in the midst of his country’s two-year civil war against his regime.  Even if that is true, that does not give the United States the moral standing to get involved.  We lost that right years ago.

            The moral reason is that chemical weapons were used.  A phrase heard amongst the faction that justifies U.S. interaction is that chemical weapons do not discriminate between soldier and child.  That is true about chemical weapons.  That is also true about nuclear weapons.  We are the only country in the history of the world to use nuclear warfare on another nation.  Up to a quarter of a million people were killed in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I’m sure some children died in those attacks too.  But hey Japan attacked us first, and it was used to end World War II.  And we warned them.  Also the use of them wasn’t illegal—because no one knew about the power of this weapon—so we are okay to use them, and to keep them in our arsenal.  But our indiscriminate killing of Asians did not end in 1945.  We dropped tons of napalm during the Vietnam War.  But chemical weapons were not banned internationally until 1997 by the United Nations, so when the U.S. used napalm it was legal then.  So it was also moral, too?  No, it wasn’t moral, but yes it was legal according to international law.  Still using these deaths to get involved does not seem like a moral reason, but more of a technicality, when you consider that over 100,000 Syrians have died up to this point and we felt no motivation to get involved then.  Why were those deaths less valuable to us?  Why did we have no moral reason to get involved?  Making a case for military action after these 1000 deaths, but not the 100,000 before, is as moral as permitting 100 rapes, but against the last one because Rohypnol was used.  A chemical not being involved doesn’t make the crime any less gruesome.  But still chemical weapons are illegal in the international stage.  It is an indiscriminate killer, and even though the U.S. used to use similar weapons, we have learned from our past and no longer use indiscriminate means of killing—unless of course you count our drone strikes.  There are more than enough dead children out there, victims from our remote controlled drones we have used in our conflicts in the Middle East and still continue to use.  So where is our moral high ground that does not permit us to use unmanned drones?  We have used chemical weapons before, we sat by and let over 100,000 people die, and we currently use attack drones to bomb whoever is in the target’s sight.  From the guerilla tactics we used in our War for Independence we have never taken the higher ground when it came to military tactics.  Why should we judge anyone else?

            Aside from moral reasons what is another popular reason to get involved in a military conflict—to help out our allies.  Our number one ally—Great Britain—in their parliament voted against any military intervention in Syria on August 29th.  The United Nations has not yet even declared Assad responsible for the chemical attack.  Our borderline allies who would also be formidable enemies—Russia and China—do not want us to get involved and have warned us against it.  If we take action we will be going alone, and run the risk of retaliation from most likely Russia.  So what allies are we going to battle for, the Syrian Rebels?  The Syrian rebellion is not a centralized rebellion.  There are many factions fighting for control.  One of the most successful rebel force is Jabhat al-Nusra—a terrorist organization that is affiliated with Al Qaeda.  We are thinking about engaging in a war for the benefit of our sworn enemy Al Qaeda?  This is the equivalent of in 1944 attacking the Soviet Union for the benefit of the Nazi’s in the midst of World War II.  Attacking Syria is not an action we are thinking of doing for the benefit of our allies.

            So we really don’t have a moral reason, or a reason to do it for our allies.  But what if we just want to make the situation better?  100,000 dead is a situation that could use improvement.  But what would actually come out of our influence in Syria?  If Assad falls out of power there is not a clear cut regime to replace him.  Our actions will manage to destabilize the region more so.  Also where ever we go and drop bombs we create new enemies.  Family members will be lost in our bombings and their loved ones who survived will want revenge—and they would run into the arms of Al Qaeda to get their vengeance.  Jabhat al-Nusra is not the largest, but it is one of the strongest forces fighting in Syria.  Is it hard to believe that once Assad is toppled more Al Qaeda aligned fighters would be making their way to Syria to help gain control?  Our actions could enable Al Qaeda—that is running out of gas—to acquire a new foot-hole for a base of operations in the Middle East, this time in Syria—a nation that shares its Southwestern border with Israel.  Our involvement in Syria cannot make this horrible situation any better.

            So what can be our reason to want to get involved?  It is not for moral reasons, to help out any allies, or to make the situation better.  When all else fails, follow the money.  Since World War II, war machines—planes, tanks, ships—have become an established industry like cars and televisions.  We learned after Pearl Harbor we needed to have equipment always ready when necessary.  These machines were always in demand during the Cold War as we competed against the Soviet Union.  The flow chart of how these machines are funded is tax dollarsàcongressàdefense contractorsàmilitary.  Congress distributes tax dollars to defense contractors to build these machines that are to be used by the military.  And so the Military Industrial Congressional Complex was formed, or as president Dwight D. Eisenhower shortened it in his farewell address—The Military Industrial Complex.

            “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961.

            Can we really deny this phenomena?  Is it still a conspiracy if a president admits its existence?  If this complex was established during Eisenhower’s presidency, circa 1953-1961, let’s compare our involvement in wars before and after its establishment:

            Revolutionary War: 1775-1883 

            War of 1812: 1812-1814

            Mexican-American War: 1846-1848

            Civil War: 1861-1865

            Spanish-American War: 1897-1898

            World War I: 1917-1918

            World War II: 1941-1945

            Korean War 1950-1953


            Vietnam War: 1965-1975

            Iraq War: 2003-2011

            Afghanistan War: 2001-present


            Before 1961 the longest war we were ever in was eight years and that was when a bunch of colonists rebelled against the strongest army in the world.  We defended ourselves again against England in the span of only two years, resolved a civil war within four, and defeated Nazi Germany also in only four years.  Yet since 1961 we fought for ten years against poor Asian farmers in Vietnam’s civil war between capitalists and communists, we spent eight years in Iraq, and after twelve years we are still currently fighting in Afghanistan.  The War in Afghanistan had a justifiable reason to get involved in with the attack of 9/11 from Al-Qaeda and a tangible goal with the death of Osama Bin Laden.  However, Iraq and Vietnam were both initiated with false information and provided no clear victory.  North Vietnam did not strike first in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, we did, and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.  And what were the results of these two conflicts?  Yes, Saddam was removed from power but that was not a concern for Americans.  We lost in Vietnam and what we feared happened—it became a unified Communist nation—and that union never threatened national security or the American was of life.  Oh, and also defense contractors made a lot of money in these wars.

            I will not dare to go as far as to say that the government was behind 9/11 or the chemical attacks in Syria to initiate a war they want, like some conspiracy theorists believe.  But I will also not deny that within this Military Industrial Complex there are opportunists.  These are the opportunists Eisenhower tried to warn us against.  They make money off orders by our government for more planes, and tanks to be built.  More planes and tanks are ordered when more planes and tanks are being destroyed daily in an armed conflict.  To maximize the most profit they don’t was a decisive war that can be in ended in only a few years.  They want quagmires.  Wars that last for decades.  Wars that don’t have a clear attainable goal that can be accomplished in a few years.  They want wars against ideologies—wars against communism, wars against terrorism.  As long as these ideologies are out there, we will have a war to fight.  These never ending wars, translate to never ending checks to their companies. 

            Which is just what they want.

            So what is are real motive for Syria?  Well Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down.  The military industrial complex needs a new country to invade, just like how terrorism became the new ideology to fight after communism.  Bombing Syria will make some contractors richer.  And if this limited strike leads to a greater conflict, well mission accomplished—more money for the Military Industrial Complex.

            Like people who make money off snowblowers would want longer winters with more snow, people who make money off war machines want longer wars with more conflicts.  They look for any reason around the world to lobby for us to get involved in militarily.  Then deals can be made like Lockhead Martin getting 7.3 billion dollars in 2007, for 60 F-22 Raptors—a plane that has not seen any combat. This is War Incorporated.  This company’s mission statement is to create long, drawn out conflicts with no immediate end in sight, but a lot of tax dollars used to pay for war contracts.  War Contractors will never want peace, and they have enough money to lobby against it.  This is a powerful voice in American politics that the American people must struggle to quiet.  We need to ask for more of a reason to get involved in a war that risks the lives of our men.  We need to give up our dream to be the policeman of the world.  We need to stop losing the lives of our young to make money for these war profiteers. 

We need to put War Incorporated out of business.