Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Orrex

(67,089 posts)

9. Good question. Since I'm a self-appointed expert on everything, here's my thought:

Reply to malaise (Original post)

Sun Mar 22, 2026, 09:57 AM

Sunday

Since the purpose of the MIC is to generate wealth for the super-wealthy, I'd say that it's doing just fine regardless of Iran or similar asymmetrical conflicts.

Money will keep flowing into their pockets, faster and faster without end. Even if defense spending swells to 95% of the overall budget, our well-paid legislators will continue to ensure that the right people get paid.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Serious question for DU experts [View all] malaise Sunday OP

I'll Say No ProfessorGAC Sunday #1

Yes. Ukraine is changing how wars are being fought. Irish_Dem Sunday #2

Expensive Consequences: The New Economics of War Goonch Sunday #3

I never thought of that, but it makes sense. Scrivener7 Sunday #4

As long as there are lobbyists to make political 'donations' and opportunists in position like the Trump boys Norrrm Sunday #5

Unlikely OC375 Sunday #6

No. Because a way to defeat the "cheaper" weapons needs to be found Callie1979 Sunday #7

As long as we give our military edhopper Sunday #8

Good question. Since I'm a self-appointed expert on everything, here's my thought: Orrex Sunday #9