What are your thoughts on the huge private American military manufacturers and contractors?

Perhaps, my question isn't really about the debatable cost effectiveness, but rather about the morality of this.

@HoraceGreenley: This is a decision that could be reversed if enough people cared. I am not saying that my idea is the best. I am just asking the question, "Are we comfortable with the knowledge that people who profit of of war have enough influence to make sure war continues to line their pockets?" With the thought kept in mind that our sons, daughters, brothers, fathers, mothers, and children bear the greatest cost of these wars. The deaths, wounds, and mental damaged suffered firstmost by the soldiers and then everyone who is in their lives.

Is that tech, tech we want to be available to private sectors?

@MarsSword: technology like the computer, Internet, WiFi, and velcro to name a few.

@HoraceGreenley: Oh, I like you appreciate such technology and enjoy it. I do think that such tech should be shared, but there are some technologies that probably shouldn't be.

@sarabee1995: Because in a purely mental world the government should be able to manufacture arms at a cheaper price than the private companies because the government is only selling to itself and if the government owned and operated arms manufacture sells the products at cost then there isn't the extra profit margin tagged on. Now I know in the real world this doesn't usually work out because governmental bureaucracy gets in the way.

That is exactly what I am talking about, the last part of your comment. The wealth that has resulted from war for these arms companies and contractors thus incentivising them for the continued state of war. They have a huge amount of money, and as we all have seen with the oil companies and gun companies there is a huge amount of power to influence the government through lobbying and supporting different political figures.

This is why I think the arms dealers and military contractors should be state run organizations. Because the powerful motive of profit for these wars and conflicts to continue is very sinister in today's world.

@MarsSword: The only world that matters is the real world. For profit, private industry delivers goods & services to the market at a lower cost than state-run industry. We've proven that in theory and in practice many times over. It is neither moral, nor immoral. It is simply fact.

Now, to the more important question of morals... Would it be right to bar certain industries and their key employees from government lobbying?

Can you point to a particular conflict that you think was influenced or brought about by industry influence?

@sarabee1995: I agree, I do tend to focus on the real world. Still, sometimes it is interesting to ask the question why since it seems reasonable that the other is true. None the less, I agree that that is just how it is and that it is neither moral nor immoral.

Yes, I think it would be right.

I think it would be hard to see the direct action of the industry, because that would be counter productive. But it isn't hard to see how conflicts in the past have really assisted these companies. It is begging the question a bit, but look how long America has been at war. We know that money influences and sometimes controls our leaders, we have seen it with the tobacco industry, and alcohol, we have seen it with oil companies protected from legislation. It doesn't take much imagination to stretch to think that the same might be going on behind the scenes with these massive arms manufacturers and military contractors. The only difference is where their profit comes from is a sinister road of death and suffering.

Don't most of these companies predate Clinton?

In addition to the moral quandary of profiting from war.