Thread: US Dedicated to Unending War, Not Peace

Originally Posted by liberalminority

in the 1970s wealth was not as concentrated in a few entities as it is today that is due to Reagan giving more power to big business when he got rid of alot of safety net regulations that prevented this

the only logical reason i can see behind the lies of the leaders for why government would send the troops out to war past, present, and future is to protect financial interests as today the corporations have alot of money invested and concentrated in them and are responsible for much of american productivity and GDP and if they failed it would be really bad

Look a little closer as US military interventionism is about US world domination as proposed by the right-wing neo-cons and embraced by some Democrats. Of course it doesn't hurt that it lines the campaign chests of the politicans that are more interested in getting elected and re-elected than in what is good for America.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

Look a little closer as US military interventionism is about US world domination as proposed by the right-wing neo-cons and embraced by some Democrats. Of course it doesn't hurt that it lines the campaign chests of the politicans that are more interested in getting elected and re-elected than in what is good for America.

"The problem of US power is not that is American, the problem is simply the power. It would be dangerous for even an archangel to wield such power."

I forgot who said that (it was in one of my political science class text books). If the Soviets had prevailed in the cold war, do you think they would not choose to be doing the same things (in terms of world domination)? Unipolar power is dangerous, regardless of it being American, Soviet, or any other.

As to your second point, maybe we should enact term limits for Congress so that their career isn't just a huge reelection campaign. Then they might get something useful done.

I agree with everyone. I think we should maintain a strong military defense and I also think we should stay out of other countries' business. There is little excuse for our "foreigh policy." Nobody invited us to be the planetary police force and we should stop doing it. Let China do it.

Originally Posted by fmw

I agree with everyone. I think we should maintain a strong military defense and I also think we should stay out of other countries' business. There is little excuse for our "foreigh policy." Nobody invited us to be the planetary police force and we should stop doing it. Let China do it.

Amen , to that .
But that is common sense and its track record is lousy . Unfortunately .

Originally Posted by raymondo

Amen , to that .
But that is common sense and its track record is lousy . Unfortunately .

While I don't advocate China playing "world cop" their record is actually far superior to the US since WW II. No nation has been involved in more military interventionism since WW II than the US.

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

. No nation has been involved in more military interventionism since WW II than the US.

And , as I tell them daily --- and never had one decent result --- sub text , won .
They nearly had a result with Libya . Unfortunately their image was so loathed that they had to pretend and let it seem that France and the English Gentlemen were fronting it .
But once they have feasted off Syria and possibly Lebanon , will they meet their match when facing the wily old Khomeini ?

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

The only enemies the United States have are those we've created in our minds. No nation wants to go to war with the United States. Not a single one so why do we want to wage war on them?

Just in case the thought of attacking might enter their minds? (See Israel for 'pre-emptive' acts of aggression...).

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

While I don't advocate China playing "world cop" their record is actually far superior to the US since WW II. No nation has been involved in more military interventionism since WW II than the US.

The Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, Indians, Filipinos and Uigurs don't agree with you.

The temptation of empire has only been resisted once in all of history to the best of my knowledge. And military defeat was instrumental in breaking the temptation in that case. I refer to Sweden.

The world is going to get a taste of Chinese ruthlessness in the next half century. They aren't any different than any one else when it comes to temptation.

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

The Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, Tibetans, Indians, Filipinos and Uigurs don't agree with you.

While China has provided material support for conflicts that does not constitute active military interventionism. The Chinese did not deploy it's military to Vietnam and the Vietnam War was the result of Western interventionism that prevented the democratic unification of Vietnam after the French withdrawal.

China has not invaded Japan.

The Korean War was a civil war and US intervened. It was the threat by the US and UN forces that lead to Chinese involvement.

Tibet is a disputed political region under Chinese control.

Reference to Indians, Filipinos and Uigurs does not represent nations but instead people. Nations are invaded so what invasions by Chinese forces are being claimed?

Originally Posted by Albert Di Salvo

The temptation of empire has only been resisted once in all of history to the best of my knowledge. And military defeat was instrumental in breaking the temptation in that case. I refer to Sweden.

The world is going to get a taste of Chinese ruthlessness in the next half century. They aren't any different than any one else when it comes to temptation.

Defensive deterance is all that is really required to stop empire building. The United States only invades countries where the United States is not deterred by the countries defensive capabilities. For example, the United States has not invaded N Korea because N Korea has nuclear weapons and has openly stated that if the US attacks it will use them in self-defense.

Not surprising though is the fact that even though the US only invades countries where it has a significant military advantage the US mostly gets it's ass kicked. We didn't win in Korea and 60 years later still have a significant military presence there. We lost in Vietnam. We sort of won in Granada but there was virtually no military resistance. The Iraq War seems to be headed into a "losing" proposition as it continues down a part to civil war. We're probably going to lose in Afghanistan because I don't see the tyrannical and corrupt regime of Karzai existing after NATO leaves.

The reason for 11+ Aircraft Carriers is because we must always maintain a presence in both the Mediterranean and the Pacific. We always have at least one carrier deployed in each area. We also have one Carrier group scheduled to replace them and they are working up to deployment. Other carriers are in various forms of operations, qualifications, overhaul, etc. Currently, An Aircraft Carrier will go on Deployment every 18 months. Deployments last anywhere from 6 months to 8 months ( I have never been on a deployment for greater than 7 months, but I have had friends extended for a month greater than that).

Sea Power is about Force Projection. The argument for this is that our allies WANT to see our forces nearby (I think they really want our money). Deployment allows us to have forces near any hotspot within 24-48 hours. We would have to drastically redesign our worldview if we want to reduce our military footprint and the only one even willing to discuss it is Dr. Paul.

Yes, I do believe that there is a upper power base in the United states who WANT to be at war all the time. War is money for the powerful.