Talk:War profiteering

Major changes, tightened scope of accusation
What I found on this page seemed to take the ultra-literal tack that anyone who profits from a war is a war profiteer. I highly doubt that this is the common usage. It's so broad as to lose its meaning. Many people unknowingly own a piece of an arms company through mutual funds, etc., and soldiers buy sunglasses, flashlights, clothes, etc. from companies that have no idea what's happening. Even Silly String has a military use.

Dubious
The claim that "This decision was made as a direct result of the influence of Lockheed Martin" is an extremely bold assertion, and requires some explanation. The article linked is an editorial piece that even sarcastically suggests that the decisions were "surely a coincidence," not citing any conclusive evidence or investigatory report that they weren't. Selling legislation is a high crime, one which has marked the end of political careers for people such as Maryland Delegate Cheryl Glenn; the current language states definitively that Thornberry is guilty of this crime. John Moser (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)