Wow I didn't know i had an account here, I have been going here for months and replying as a guest and i say hello everyone.
Well my question is, does anyone know much about the MIC? It seems alot of people forgot a famous presidents speech (I always get Nixon and Eisenhower mixed up for some reason) warning us about the MIC. Or people taking it with a pinch of salt.What are your opinions? Do you think the MIC still plays a major role in the world today? Or do they even exsist at all? All of you are very intellegent in this board, one of you are bound to find something intresting =)
Full Version: the MIC
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
I have no idea what the MIC might be... Men in Cream or something like that?
Chances are, if a president said it, it is on record somewhere. Maybe on-line, but somewhere anyway. Maybe someone can offer an explination of what MIC might stand for (I am assuming it is an acronym, otherwise perhaps they were just talking about the microphone).
Chances are, if a president said it, it is on record somewhere. Maybe on-line, but somewhere anyway. Maybe someone can offer an explination of what MIC might stand for (I am assuming it is an acronym, otherwise perhaps they were just talking about the microphone).
Oh im sorry, the MIc is the Military Industrial Complex (I think) it's an underground organization that was said (president warned us) to basiccally rule everything. They control wars if the men needed profits and so on. Don't kow much about them thats why I asked myself =)
isn't that like a thing you talk into 
sorry i have no idea
sorry i have no idea
@ SabrinaI was actually thinking the same thing
In the councils of government, we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military- industrial complex."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address
January 17, 1961
some info, the little on the MIC - http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/complex/
Seems from what I read around the internet, the MIC basically controls/controlled wars and thus more profits for them because the men/women who control it distribute and or make the weapons. Now a war like Iraq, debatable yes, we haven't found these weapons of mass destruction yet. Could this [the war] have been the work of the MIC or a political war for Bush? Or even if it wasn't the MIC could it have been another underground "government" that Bush may/may not (or have control over) be apart in. First I heard it was during history when I read thatMIC was mobilizing armies and Eisenhower was warning them about us during his speech (little quote ontop). This was US history and I see this board is very diverse (alot of different countries) so most of you may have not have heard about the MIC. Let me rephrase the question a little; Do most of you believe that there is an organization controlling whats happening in the world?
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military- industrial complex."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address
January 17, 1961
some info, the little on the MIC - http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/complex/
Seems from what I read around the internet, the MIC basically controls/controlled wars and thus more profits for them because the men/women who control it distribute and or make the weapons. Now a war like Iraq, debatable yes, we haven't found these weapons of mass destruction yet. Could this [the war] have been the work of the MIC or a political war for Bush? Or even if it wasn't the MIC could it have been another underground "government" that Bush may/may not (or have control over) be apart in. First I heard it was during history when I read thatMIC was mobilizing armies and Eisenhower was warning them about us during his speech (little quote ontop). This was US history and I see this board is very diverse (alot of different countries) so most of you may have not have heard about the MIC. Let me rephrase the question a little; Do most of you believe that there is an organization controlling whats happening in the world?
I don't believe there is an organization controlling whats happening in the world. Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found yet, but the weapons of mass destruction programs have been confirmed. It is very easy to conceal small weapons in a relatively large country, and these weapons could potentially be hidden for years. The programs have been confirmed, and the IAEA have recently discovered large amounts of uranium, and the former U.N. weapons inspection team have discovered ready to use illegal missiles.
That there were weapons of mass destruction is not yet factual, but that there was a program to develope these weapons is a fact. That alone gave the coalition legal reasons for the war, as it violated the U.N. mandate that all 15 U.N. Security Council members agreed to.
About the MIC, everyone has heard of it, regardless what country they are from, but nobody has seen it referenced with the acronym 'MIC', because that is not a proper acronym for that. The Military Industrial Complex is a powerful organization, but until I see more evidence showing otherwise, I will believe it receives it's orders from the federal government
That there were weapons of mass destruction is not yet factual, but that there was a program to develope these weapons is a fact. That alone gave the coalition legal reasons for the war, as it violated the U.N. mandate that all 15 U.N. Security Council members agreed to.
About the MIC, everyone has heard of it, regardless what country they are from, but nobody has seen it referenced with the acronym 'MIC', because that is not a proper acronym for that. The Military Industrial Complex is a powerful organization, but until I see more evidence showing otherwise, I will believe it receives it's orders from the federal government
Homer thank you for the information, I didn't know that they found programs. I go to other forums and there is so many anti-americans on these boards they never mention things like this, that they found programs.
Next time will be more specific, i guess i get lazy sometimes and just use acronyms (well i heard it from my teacher so i thought it was widely used also).
Next time will be more specific, i guess i get lazy sometimes and just use acronyms (well i heard it from my teacher so i thought it was widely used also).
Your welcome bounty_hunter,
I imagine that there are a lot of anti-Americans because of the Military Industrial Complex.
But I'm definately no expert on the subject, and welcome the input anyone else might have on this as well
I imagine that there are a lot of anti-Americans because of the Military Industrial Complex.
But I'm definately no expert on the subject, and welcome the input anyone else might have on this as well
Sorry i don't know what MIC means ... but I think the other guys and galls explained it
Just wanted to say ... WELCOME TO THE FORUM ...
Just wanted to say ... WELCOME TO THE FORUM ...
Do they have this kind of thing in Canada...actually I think we spent all of our military budget on those bunk submarines a few years back and we're still in the red. Our version of an underground base is a hole with a tarpaulin stretched across the top. And some string attached to cans as the motion detectors.
Although I am not a Canadian, I do know for a fact that they do not have this kind of thing there. The New York Police Department is more armed than the entire Canadian military. The U.S. guarantees Canada's independence, so for them to have a vast military industrial complex is a waste of money that could be better spent on their socialistic domestic programs.
*Before I get lashed by the many Canadian members here, prove I am wrong*
*Before I get lashed by the many Canadian members here, prove I am wrong*
To bring a far more enlightened group of facts to the table than Homer has managed, Canada does have an underground facility, but it is command and control only. No production there.
Also, the NYPD is NOT better armed than the Canadian Military. The Canadian Armed Forces includes F-18s, Frigates and LAV IIIs. Riot gear and horses do not come close to matching that firepower.
To say that the U.S. guarntees the independane of Canada is true, although moot. The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with. Consider Kuwait and Israel as direct examples of other countries the US has taken under their wing and decided to protect.
The simple fact is that an invasion of Canada from a non-US state must come from sea. Since no non-US state has a large enough army/navy/air force to take on such a task of moving it all over here and keeping their own borders defended, it becomes a question of risk assessment. Since it is low, preparedness does not have to be off the scale.
Since World War II / Korea, Canada has opted for a role moreso in a peace kepping capacity than America's global policing role. Both of these roles reflect a philosophy within each country. Neither is incorrect and they both have their place within the world.
It should also be noted that Canada has a good history concerning wars that involve the Americans, in fact, we beat them once. Canada supports the US as necessary, but sometimes we differ at the times we involve ourselves in a war.
Also, the NYPD is NOT better armed than the Canadian Military. The Canadian Armed Forces includes F-18s, Frigates and LAV IIIs. Riot gear and horses do not come close to matching that firepower.
To say that the U.S. guarntees the independane of Canada is true, although moot. The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with. Consider Kuwait and Israel as direct examples of other countries the US has taken under their wing and decided to protect.
The simple fact is that an invasion of Canada from a non-US state must come from sea. Since no non-US state has a large enough army/navy/air force to take on such a task of moving it all over here and keeping their own borders defended, it becomes a question of risk assessment. Since it is low, preparedness does not have to be off the scale.
Since World War II / Korea, Canada has opted for a role moreso in a peace kepping capacity than America's global policing role. Both of these roles reflect a philosophy within each country. Neither is incorrect and they both have their place within the world.
It should also be noted that Canada has a good history concerning wars that involve the Americans, in fact, we beat them once. Canada supports the US as necessary, but sometimes we differ at the times we involve ourselves in a war.
| QUOTE |
| To bring a far more enlightened group of facts to the table than Homer has managed |
Interesting choice of words, but I will overlook it. I can manage to bring a far more enlightened set of facts at any given time, but the topic surely didn't warrant it. The questioned asked was if Canada had it's own military industrial complex, and the answer is simply no. No need for lengthy posts to debate this.
| QUOTE |
| Canada does have an underground facility, but it is command and control only. No production there. |
Again, the question was about a military industrial complex, not an underground facility. There are a few nations that have them, but Canada isn't one of them.
| QUOTE |
| Also, the NYPD is NOT better armed than the Canadian Military |
| QUOTE |
| The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with |
That is an incorrect statement, as there are a few nations that the U.S. would be incapable of guaranteeing even if it wanted to.
| QUOTE |
| Since no non-US state has a large enough army/navy/air force to take on such a task of moving it all over here and keeping their own borders defended, it becomes a question of risk assessment. Since it is low, preparedness does not have to be off the scale. |
This is my point exactly. Canada has no reason for a military industrial complex, which is why it doesn't have one.
| QUOTE |
| It should also be noted that Canada has a good history concerning wars that involve the Americans, in fact, we beat them once |
You know Homer, I just don't get you. I come out and provide confirmation of your claim that Canada has no military production facility and clean up BuhiBuhi-Kan's statement about an underground base and yet you dwell on it at great length despite you statement of,
Then why not let it rest? You touch upon it three times!
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt - perhaps you thought that post was directed entirely at you because I included your name. To be clear, it was not. It was posted to clairify any questions others may have had regarding some bold claims that you made in your post, specifically regarding the levels of armament of the CAF and the NYPD. Not everyone here might have regarded this as a throw away comment, despite it's absurdity.
There is one element of your reply that I will quibble with however, that being the section regarding American Defence. America is the only military superpower left and is more than capable of defending any single country from any other, and in most instances, any group of others. Actually, it is a statement concerning potential moreso than what could or would happen.
Let's take this example:
Hameel is threatening to invade Nordo. Depending on what the US feels it is obligated to do, it could entirely wipe out Hameel, thus preserving Nordo as a state, or they coudl feel that Hameel is correct and wipe out Nordo. Obliteration of one side is a viable means to protect another. Granted, of course, the US never decided/will decide to felx its muscle to this extent, but it could be done.
| QUOTE |
| No need for lengthy posts to debate this. |
Then why not let it rest? You touch upon it three times!
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt - perhaps you thought that post was directed entirely at you because I included your name. To be clear, it was not. It was posted to clairify any questions others may have had regarding some bold claims that you made in your post, specifically regarding the levels of armament of the CAF and the NYPD. Not everyone here might have regarded this as a throw away comment, despite it's absurdity.
There is one element of your reply that I will quibble with however, that being the section regarding American Defence. America is the only military superpower left and is more than capable of defending any single country from any other, and in most instances, any group of others. Actually, it is a statement concerning potential moreso than what could or would happen.
Let's take this example:
Hameel is threatening to invade Nordo. Depending on what the US feels it is obligated to do, it could entirely wipe out Hameel, thus preserving Nordo as a state, or they coudl feel that Hameel is correct and wipe out Nordo. Obliteration of one side is a viable means to protect another. Granted, of course, the US never decided/will decide to felx its muscle to this extent, but it could be done.
Space Moose,
My reply to BuhiBuhi-Kun was three sentences long, and even one of those was a simple exaggeration to illustrate a point. You are the one who replied with 6 paragraphs after that. Yet you state "Then why not let it rest? You touch upon it three times!" The fact is I didn't dwell on it even once. I had issues with some of the things you posted, and I commented one time on what I had issues with. There is no dwelling on things from me.
You claim your post was to further clarify, but you went off on a tangent, not even keeping with the topic at times.
One more thing. You were wrong the first time you mentioned it, and now you changed the wording to try to make yourself right. You originally stated that "The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with"
The you stated "America is the only military superpower left and is more than capable of defending any single country from any other"
The fact is, these are two different statements, meaning two different things. There are several countries that the U.S. isn't capable of guaranteeing their independance. The U.S. can attack any country on earth, but the U.S. cannot defeat every nation on earth to protect their respective neighbor
My reply to BuhiBuhi-Kun was three sentences long, and even one of those was a simple exaggeration to illustrate a point. You are the one who replied with 6 paragraphs after that. Yet you state "Then why not let it rest? You touch upon it three times!" The fact is I didn't dwell on it even once. I had issues with some of the things you posted, and I commented one time on what I had issues with. There is no dwelling on things from me.
You claim your post was to further clarify, but you went off on a tangent, not even keeping with the topic at times.
One more thing. You were wrong the first time you mentioned it, and now you changed the wording to try to make yourself right. You originally stated that "The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with"
The you stated "America is the only military superpower left and is more than capable of defending any single country from any other"
The fact is, these are two different statements, meaning two different things. There are several countries that the U.S. isn't capable of guaranteeing their independance. The U.S. can attack any country on earth, but the U.S. cannot defeat every nation on earth to protect their respective neighbor
Three times:
Number 1:
Number 2:
Number 3:
As a further note, thank you for permitting no adjusted statements regarding an origional thought. I am sure facists everywhere are pleased with your practice. Just what did you want me to do, repeat exactaly what I said earlier?
Perhaps so, since you parade out the same tired and meaningless line again and again. In fact, you don't even feel the need to name the states that America is incapable of protecting. I will be sure to reply in an equally useless manner in the future.
Number 1:
| QUOTE |
| The questioned asked was if Canada had it's own military industrial complex, and the answer is simply no. No need for lengthy posts to debate this. |
Number 2:
| QUOTE |
| Again, the question was about a military industrial complex, not an underground facility. There are a few nations that have them, but Canada isn't one of them. |
Number 3:
| QUOTE |
| This is my point exactly. Canada has no reason for a military industrial complex, which is why it doesn't have one. |
As a further note, thank you for permitting no adjusted statements regarding an origional thought. I am sure facists everywhere are pleased with your practice. Just what did you want me to do, repeat exactaly what I said earlier?
Perhaps so, since you parade out the same tired and meaningless line again and again. In fact, you don't even feel the need to name the states that America is incapable of protecting. I will be sure to reply in an equally useless manner in the future.
Space Moose,
The three quotes you have posted of mine are individual replies to your individual comments. Each are seperate replies, yet redundant due to the nature of your post. So there is no dwelling on it, as you say.
That was certainly uncalled for, and demonstrates to everyone the type of person you are. Guaranteeing a nations independance is different than just defending that nation. No you don't have to repeat word for word what you previously said, and yes you can adjust your statement whenever you want. But these statements are different, and shouldn't be confused with each other. Nothing remotely fascist about trying to keep to the point, or to clarify specifically what you mean.
I never said that America is incapable of protecting or defending any nation. What I did say was "there are a few nations that the U.S. would be incapable of guaranteeing even if it wanted to."
which was to rebuke your erroneous statement
I will only name two, as I will not take this argument to a new level of who the U.S. can or cannot guarantee. Nepal and Bhutan are two nations that the U.S. does not even have the capacity to guarantee their independance
It seems you are defending your pride, and in doing so, are consistently posting inaccurate information. I reply to the posts, in an attempt to correct your errors, and all I get is comments like
Whatever Space Moose
The three quotes you have posted of mine are individual replies to your individual comments. Each are seperate replies, yet redundant due to the nature of your post. So there is no dwelling on it, as you say.
| QUOTE |
| I am sure facists everywhere are pleased with your practice |
That was certainly uncalled for, and demonstrates to everyone the type of person you are. Guaranteeing a nations independance is different than just defending that nation. No you don't have to repeat word for word what you previously said, and yes you can adjust your statement whenever you want. But these statements are different, and shouldn't be confused with each other. Nothing remotely fascist about trying to keep to the point, or to clarify specifically what you mean.
| QUOTE |
| In fact, you don't even feel the need to name the states that America is incapable of protecting |
I never said that America is incapable of protecting or defending any nation. What I did say was "there are a few nations that the U.S. would be incapable of guaranteeing even if it wanted to."
which was to rebuke your erroneous statement
| QUOTE |
| The U.S. is able to guarntee the independance of anyone that are not at odds with |
I will only name two, as I will not take this argument to a new level of who the U.S. can or cannot guarantee. Nepal and Bhutan are two nations that the U.S. does not even have the capacity to guarantee their independance
It seems you are defending your pride, and in doing so, are consistently posting inaccurate information. I reply to the posts, in an attempt to correct your errors, and all I get is comments like
| QUOTE |
| since you parade out the same tired and meaningless line again and again. |
Whatever Space Moose
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.