Is the Australian War Memorial an apt place for a weapons manufacturer to hold an event?

[telsor]

1816 - the Remington Arms Company is founded in New York, U.S.A. After knocking up different kinds of rifle and handgun for the U.S Civil War and the Indian War/s Remington scores big when WW1 breaks out.

1854 - the U.K needs new artillery pieces after finding out its cannons were not up to scratch in the Crimean War. Private contractor W.G. Armstrong & Company soon becomes the first big-time private international military-industrial player and company president William Armstrong is knighted after giving his patented breech-loading artillery designs to the British government.

There are probably quite a few others as well.

I was thinking more when Eisenhower warned about it.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I was thinking more when Eisenhower warned about it.

Yeah, that's the origin of the term, but governments being in cahoots with private arms dealers and manufacturers goes back a bitfurther than his 1961 speech!

 

[telsor]

Yeah, that's the origin of the term, but governments being in cahoots with private arms dealers and manufacturers goes back a bitfurther than his 1961 speech!

Governments being 'in cahoots' with anyone who supplies them goes back as far as governments have existed. I think the question is more about the tail wagging the dog and for that it's pretty hard to provide a firm date.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I suppose the lynchpin would be when those arms companies became 'private' tenders rather than government-controlled ones. The ability of private firms to lobby and guide/direct the decisionmaking of the government of the day became concrete at that point, and so the MIC was created.

 

[The Coup]

Or in other words, you're wrong and trying to hide behind semantics rather than admit it.

It is clear in the context of the thread what I'm referring to.

How can I be wrong when you haven't said anything?

 

[The Coup]

The real point here is telsor asked a question about the reasons for war PRIOR to the MIC.

When I asked him to expand, he turned the argument into a debate about the date the MIC started.

Conservative evasion 101.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Fair enough!

 

[telsor]

The real point here is telsor asked a question about the reasons for war PRIOR to the MIC.

When I asked him to expand, he turned the argument into a debate about the date the MIC started.

Conservative evasion 101.

Not at all.

You stated that war was only waged for the benefit of weapons manufacturers. (post #3)

I pointed out that for thousands of years this wasn't the case, thus showing many other reasons for war. (#7)

You 'clarified' that you meant modern war (#10)

I questioned if you thought that meant previous reasons had stopped (#14)

You asked for an example that didn't fit (#15)

I asked you to clarify dates to save further debate on that (#16) (nb, far from debating the date, I was allowing you to define it).

You dodged (#17), I clarified (#18), you dodged again (#19)

I provided an example, as requested in #15 (#20), which you ignored (#21) preferring to attack the messenger.

I pointed out your evasion and provided more examples (#22)

You avoid the discussion again (#23) and again (#30)

 

[The Coup]

You're welcome to state an opinion at any time champ

 

[Jakko]

I'm happy for the AWM and veterans groups to decide something like this, much like "raise a glass" campaign, that gets the same folk riled up each year.

 

[Power Raid]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...still-time-to-reject-these-merchants-of-death

I'm surprised this hasn't cause a bit more of a stir. I think a memorial commemorating our war dead is no place for a company who specialises in coming up with new and interesting ways of adding to the roll of honour. That it is seen to have governmental blessing with the defence minister attending, although god knows they have to find something useful for him to do, makes it even more disappointing.

in short no

War is a fact of life and so to is weapons manufacturing. but the celebration of war is disgusting and the promotion of the business of war is worse and in this case tasteless.

I would go as far as saying, I would prefer we have no memorials.

 

[Pie eyed]

Not appropriate.
Even an Australian weapons manufacturer would be out of line.

in short no

War is a fact of life and so to is weapons manufacturing. but the celebration of war is disgusting and the promotion of the business of war is worse and in this case tasteless.

I would go as far as saying, I would prefer we have no memorials.

Memorials are for the dead, from a time when it was impossible to return the bodies, however THE War Memorial should be, like ANZAC Day, a remembrance of all the war dead, a reminder of the horror of war and our determination to eradicate it.

 

[telsor]

You're welcome to state an opinion at any time champ

OK. My opinion is that your premise that "The purpose of war is to benefit weapons manufacturers" is complete crap.

I'd thought that obvious from the first, but apparently not.

 

[Jakko]

Not appropriate.
Even an Australian weapons manufacturer would be out of line.

Memorials are for the dead, from a time when it was impossible to return the bodies, however THE War Memorial should be, like ANZAC Day, a remembrance of all the war dead, a reminder of the horror of war and our determination to eradicate it.

Devils advocate and all, the apparently offending weapons manufacturing sector have suppled our troops with the means to defend themselves for a long time. An underrated concern for those not actually sent into the firing line?

Like I said earlier....this is an issue that I will back the judgement of veterans groups and the AWM.

 

[Power Raid]

Devils advocate and all, the apparently offending weapons manufacturing sector have suppled our troops with the means to defend themselves for a long time. An underrated concern for those not actually sent into the firing line?

Like I said earlier....this is an issue that I will back the judgement of veterans groups and the AWM.

fair comment

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

OK. My opinion is that your premise that "The purpose of war is to benefit weapons manufacturers" is complete crap.

I'd thought that obvious from the first, but apparently not.

However, it's an inarguable Truth that weapons manufacturers are the first and foremost to profit from conflict, yes? It's in their best interests to

a)have conflicts

and

b)keep alive the potential/paranoia for and about future conflict

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[telsor]

However, it's an inarguable Truth that weapons manufacturers are the first and foremost to profit from conflict, yes? It's in their best interests to

a)have conflicts

and

b)keep alive the potential/paranoia for and about future conflict

Wouldn't you agree?

That's a very different statement from the one The_Coup made (and refuses to defend).

 

[Power Raid]

However, it's an inarguable Truth that weapons manufacturers are the first and foremost to profit from conflict, yes? It's in their best interests to

a)have conflicts

and

b)keep alive the potential/paranoia for and about future conflict

Wouldn't you agree?

I am sure their are some within the industry that think like that but the reality is defence forces are always prepared as a deterrent to conflict meaning we buy the goods whether we intend to use them or not.

Further, given warfare is an evolutionary, most weapons have a limited shelf life. Meaning their goods are always being bought in war time or otherwise just to keep our armament in good order.

Lastly, if you look at Australia we have been at war or on deployment more years than not since federation. Thus between war, deployments and training we find a way to consume our "new toys".

So there is no benefit of weapons manufacturers to take that view even if some do.

 

[B4Bear]

Bloody disgusting decision.

Is there nothing this government won't do to turn a buck. Brendan Nelson should have made this stupid idea still born before it ever got into the public sphere.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's a very different statement from the one The_Coup made (and refuses to defend).

Is it? From a certain point of view The Coup's statement;

The purpose of war is to benefit weapons manufacturers, so I think it is entirely appropriate.

is TRUE, when you look at the aims and goals of private weapons manufacturers even if Power Raid's comment;

I am sure their are some within the industry that think like that but the reality is defence forces are always prepared as a deterrent to conflict meaning we buy the goods whether we intend to use them or not.

Further, given warfare is an evolutionary, most weapons have a limited shelf life. Meaning their goods are always being bought in war time or otherwise just to keep our armament in good order...

is true in a general sense. Northrop's goal, as a weapons contractor, is to keep those names appearing on the walls, decade after decade, for as long as it can. It's purpose is to make a profit from war, or the perceived THREAT of war. War, from the point of view of the manufacturers, is their sole reason for being (unless they have civilian divisions like Boeing and indeed Northrop do).

He's now edited his post;

EDIT: please note the quotation marks, this is not my opinion but satire of how the weapons companies must look at the people who actually fight their wars

to make it clear that he's arguing from the point of view of the weapons manufacturers, which is how I read the post anyway.

 

[The Coup]

That's a very different statement from the one The_Coup made (and refuses to defend).

Bollocks.

 

[The Coup]

OK. My opinion is that your premise that "The purpose of war is to benefit weapons manufacturers" is complete crap.

I'd thought that obvious from the first, but apparently not.

Ok now you need to explain why you think its complete crap, and we can start discussing the conversation.

At this point you've spent about a dozen posts in this thread to say "I think that's crap", which is not an argument - just a stupid comment.

If you want to expand on it, I will respect you with a reply.

 

[telsor]

Ok now you need to explain why you think its complete crap, and we can start discussing the conversation.

At this point you've spent about a dozen posts in this thread to say "I think that's crap", which is not an argument - just a stupid comment.

If you want to expand on it, I will respect you with a reply.

No, you'll clearly dodge and weave to avoid answering like you have.

It's your position. I've shown it doesn't hold up. You defend it.

 

[Gough]

telsor When you say "the left" what do you mean by it?

 

[The Coup]

No, you'll clearly dodge and weave to avoid answering like you have.

It's your position. I've shown it doesn't hold up. You defend it.

You said it was crap.

That isn't showing anything other than the fact you don't like hearing it, but can't explain why.