Yeah, we should give board members of arms companies the benefit of the doubt.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Is it not possible to believe both of these things:
1. The US military complex has caused massive, irrepreable damage to the world and should be held accountable
2. The incoming administration is significantly more capable, experienced and sane than the previous one, and that is a good thing
I hate this both sides are equally bad bullsh*t. In any logical measure they are not. Some of you just seem to want to out-nihilist each other.
1. The US military complex has caused massive, irrepreable damage to the world and should be held accountable
2. The incoming administration is significantly more capable, experienced and sane than the previous one, and that is a good thing
I hate this both sides are equally bad bullsh*t. In any logical measure they are not. Some of you just seem to want to out-nihilist each other.
Haven’t once defended it, just stating the reality of the situation. You’re right that it’s largely disappointing. But, there’s a finite amount of effort that one can choose to exert to try to affect change. It’s wise to know when such exertions could potentially have positive results & to focus on them vs. potentially not getting any result no matter how much exertion is expended.
Spot on. Well said.
I understand that frustration. But you actively argued against someone criticizing a practice you yourself condemn. So if you can't put any more effort into change (which I honestly understand), then maybe you shouldn't be putting effort into discouraging others from fighting for change?
Is anyone on here actually fighting for change or just typing angry words?
People do know that Raytheon provides military weapons and a broad range of technology to countries around the world right? Even if there's no war going on, they supply countries with weapons and tech. It's a necessary evil in the current world. Those countries look to the United States and others for their defense weapons, systems, and tech.
I find it odd that people are questioning the selection of a Defense Secretary with an overwhelmingly qualified CV.
"An aspect of the defense secretary’s job that is unfamiliar to most who take the job is the far-flung and complex network of nuclear forces that are central to U.S. defense strategy." - NBC News
The comparison between a Vice President and Halliburton is a stretch. Cheney was acting CEO and Chairman for five years prior to becoming VP. He had directly contracted work from Halliburton since the early 1990s. It's nowhere near what people are claiming about General Austin and his five years as a Board of Director with Raytheon.
I find it odd that people are questioning the selection of a Defense Secretary with an overwhelmingly qualified CV.
"An aspect of the defense secretary’s job that is unfamiliar to most who take the job is the far-flung and complex network of nuclear forces that are central to U.S. defense strategy." - NBC News
The comparison between a Vice President and Halliburton is a stretch. Cheney was acting CEO and Chairman for five years prior to becoming VP. He had directly contracted work from Halliburton since the early 1990s. It's nowhere near what people are claiming about General Austin and his five years as a Board of Director with Raytheon.
I just tend to understand the reality of certain situations & focus my efforts where I think change can occur.
This all started from my pointing out that the new SecDef’s defense industry background isn’t novel in the least, that it looks like roughly more than half of all of them have such a background. If someone wants that to be the hill of change to try to surmount, bravo. My pointing out the reality of the situation wasn’t to try to dissuade their efforts, it was to simply point out the reality of the situation & how it’s existed since the 60s.
Institutions like this are ultimately malleable, but not too often achievable. Again, the unfortunate reality.
The US doesn't have to start a war themselves to make an arms company rich. There are countless ways to boost arms sales without having a single soldier of your own country even touch a weapon. It's an obvious conflict of interest.
So what's your conflict of interest with Gen. Austin? The U.S. Military already has hundreds of key contracts to Raytheon before, during, and after his time as Defense Secretary. Also with Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, BAE, etc. Raytheon is the world's top contractor when it comes to missiles and missile systems. And that's my original point. There doesn't even need to be a war in the world, but every single country will still have a defense budget and will be looking to the United States for arms and tech. When you're in the military for 41 years, a General, etc. you're going to have so many interests that it's not a conflict, it's just the nature of the career.
yeah you didn't even know who he was till about an hour ago and your frantic Googling has led you to determine that he's Pol Pot or summat. Anyone serving on a corporate board is out then? Great criteria. So who should Biden have picked who will get through confirmation?
He has a masters degree from, and sits on the board of, Auburn Univ. I love the pick. War Eagle.
I was just reading about Carter's SecDef. fecking red-skulled Nazi according to this lot.
Let’s check out the Biden thread...
The South Asian bit is a wee bit strange, since she doesn't seem to have any linkages to the community. Tulsi Gabbard is probably more South Asian than Kamala, and she's Haaawaian.
Here is a mock cabinet with possible progressive choices. I haven’t read the whole thing and how progressive you see some of the people in here is up to you I guess, but it is more interesting than a lot of what i read in here.
Who might people have wanted? Cirincione or Bruce Riedel were proposed by some progressive policy groups back in December
Who might people have wanted? Cirincione or Bruce Riedel were proposed by some progressive policy groups back in December
She’s whaaaat
Personally I don't think defending a former employe of Raytheon is a good use of anyones time.
But well the man with the blue tie is in charge now, so............
But well the man with the blue tie is in charge now, so............
Where's his wingman?
The General was never an employee of Raytheon to begin with.
Mother? Where is Mother?!
As if serving on a contractor's board is the only way for an official to become corrupt , and there is absolutely no chance someone without previous corporate ties to get influenced. Oh wait, what's that "lobbying" thing again ?
Wait for the guy to award an overpriced cost + contract to Raytheon before jumping the gun bashing him.
What is even more amusing is that there are actual legitimate reasons to critisise this appointment. It is yet another instance when the waiver is needed due to insufficent time outside the military. It is more concerning that his decisons and recommendations may be influenced by being close to the brass still on active duty, and not the fact that he knows some executives in the industry.
Wait for the guy to award an overpriced cost + contract to Raytheon before jumping the gun bashing him.
What is even more amusing is that there are actual legitimate reasons to critisise this appointment. It is yet another instance when the waiver is needed due to insufficent time outside the military. It is more concerning that his decisons and recommendations may be influenced by being close to the brass still on active duty, and not the fact that he knows some executives in the industry.
Technically not true.
He received $351,183 in FY 2019 and has 7K plus shares in stock ( SEC DEF14A Filing)
So he received that salary as an employee of Raytheon and as a public citizen? If anything, his Pine Island is more interesting to looking into than just being a Board of Directors member for Raytheon.
Correct. I only looked at Raytheon's most recent filing, so I am not sure when he began as a director, but I am assuming it would be after he left the Army. EDGAR (the SEC's database) is a fun place to go to dig for stuff on Director compensation for public ocmpanies. Most of it is obscene.
How is this thread already so depressing? By the way there's alot of people in Georgia waiting for stimulus checks that they were promised.
Obscene for sure! It's ugly...Yeah, he was director a year after he retired from the Army as you said.
So according to Caf’s wisdom, the secretary of defense should not be an ex-general and also should not have worked in the military complex? Because they all make wars and so on.
Essentially, the secretary of defense should be someone that doesn’t know much about the military. This wannabe cultural revolution of Caftists is cute to watch.
Essentially, the secretary of defense should be someone that doesn’t know much about the military. This wannabe cultural revolution of Caftists is cute to watch.
Last edited:
Congress has only been in session for two days since the new presidency! This is the government we're talking about, it's not going to happen immediately, ha!
Actually if you’ve been reading through you should have noticed that while some on here are opposed to this appointment, others are supportive. It’s like the Cafe doesn’t speak with one voice.
I mean..your first reply was, this is a non-story. Now you’re waxing lyrical about why you do find it abhorrent but still somehow it is the right thing to do. IMO these are the typical bad faith arguments made to justify imperial agendas and nothing more.
Imperial agendas!
Would fit nicely in a press release from TASS from the 1980s.Imperial agendas!
What I'm curious about: why would the Secretary of Defence have to be a former top military officer? I know that's the tradition in the US, but that's not much of a reason (although I know traditions are hard to break). First, it's a political job. Yes, affinity with the military is obviously important, but these people not making tactical decisions and they don't draw up those equipment contracts. Lots of top diplomats could do this - as proven by other countries (which is my second point), where this job isn't necessarily filled this way. In Westminster democracies, it's actually difficult to do, as there aren't a lot of former top military officers running for MP, and you can't be a member of cabinet if you have not been elected in a riding. But also in the Netherlands, where ministers don't have to have any political background, ministers of defence rarely have any military background. I know the US is much bigger than those countries and all that jazz, but that's still not an argument for why you need a top former military officer. What's the actual argument?
Tell me that this is actually taking off on nutwitter