Everlasting War
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: Everlasting War
During the last century, there is no country on earth that has engaged in as much war as the United States. the United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.

Yes. The United States is a War Machine.

20, 30, 40 years from now you will look back and ask the question I have: "Why has the US been at constant war for most all my life?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 05:39 AM
RE: Everlasting War
I find it interesting that some here have dismissed the OP and some subsequent posts as some form of US bashing and therefore can be ignored out of hand.

I will make it simple for those posters by only asking about one of those violent incursions by the US. Were the reasons for invading Iraq rational and did that invasion provide a positive result for both the Iraqi and US public.

You get an automatic +1 for freeing Iraq of Hussein but that becomes a 0 when you add it to the -1 of al-Maliki and the rest of the only semi functional Iraqi government.

OK get me to just +5 and I will concede. You do realize that I have an easier task with the negatives than you do with the positives, I hope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
26-06-2013, 07:04 AM
RE: Everlasting War
Whilst the US has spearheaded many "campaigns", all of their allies (I include my own UK goverment) have allowed them to. Americas Allies are just as guilty, they are direct and indirect accomplices.

I think there are multiple reasons for wars.

All throughout history they all have in common...

1: I want (insert object/belief/goal)
2: I wish to preserve (Insert object/belief/goal)

As humanity has evolved it gets more complicated. When the dollar was made the worlds reserve currency this then empowered America economically. Anything that may threaten this power needs to be dealt with. So I think the recent conflicts of Iraq and libya fall under category 2 (I wish to preserve, seeing as Saddam has stopped selling his oil in petrodollars and Qaddafi was in the final stages of making the Gold Dinar) The fact that armaments that can help drive an economy that need to be used up so more can be purchased and that money can be made by private organisations by rebuilding the smashed up infrastructure of these countries is just secondary in my eyes.

Its going to be very interesting to see what happens with regards to Syria and Iran.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 08:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2013 08:25 AM by ridethespiral.)
RE: Everlasting War
This is the Wolfowitz doctrine in action. Interfere in the affairs of every small nation of any significance to tip scales in favor of American power and American interests, despite any undesired effects for the countries people/the region. It makes sense when you have an expansionist threat like the USSR, but in 2013 the detrements begin to outweigh the benefits, at least for the average (non billionaire) citizen.

I have a few problems with Americas interventionist policy...

1) Since the 60's when the American people decided they would rather a little less than have the blood of innocents on their hands the government has propagandized every intervention from Panama to Afghanistan. The invasion of Panama was not about freedom, we put Noriega in power just years earlier, it wasn't about 1 dead soldier (the truth behind which is still fuzzy at best). It was about the Canal and US military bases...and the Americans where only greeted as heros in the rich, white upperclass Panama, which of course is where the media camped out....I could go on. The point being it should be up to the people to decide if they would rather 'free' Iraq or have a decent healthcare system, and it's not it's up to the media and it's up to the monied interests.

2) The war machine is either un-stable or un-sustainable. You can't spend 18% of GDP on the military and not have domestic crises/funding issues and you can't interfere with global affairs and maintain bases around the globe without it. You also can't spend 18% of the GDP and watch the bombers sit in their hangars and the tanks rust in their lots. A large military will be leveraged, warranted or not.

3) The Wolfowitz doctrine has a snowballing effect, every time we empower some ruthless dictator with American weapons him and his men will be the anti-american terrorists in 20 years. Every time we allow one government (Israel) to subjugate another (Palestine) for American profit we create a pocket of decent that will only be harder to deal with in the coming years.

...That being said I have played enough Civ to know that from a purely Nationalist/Expansionist (and the lynch pin in American economics is expansion, ceaseless expansion) standpoint that if you don't meddle in the affairs of your neighbors using the Truman doctrine (here take this money/food) and/or the Wolfowitz doctrine (spying, election rigging, bullying) so other power will and you will be worse off for it....of course it's the year 2013 and there is no other great adversary, China soon enough, but we are interfering on behalf of the supply chain not freedom, we are 'protecting' these people from whoever might decrease American influence in the region, regardless of what is best for the people of any of these nations.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
26-06-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: Everlasting War
(25-06-2013 05:10 PM)Julius Wrote:  During the last century, there is no country on earth that has engaged in as much war as the United States. the United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.

During the last century? No. But only because the Soviet Union only pursued an external foreign policy for forty of those years...

In their heyday, ALL great powers do so. Because they can.

Eisenhower saw the writing on the wall with regards to the military industrial complex sixty years ago.


(26-06-2013 05:39 AM)JAH Wrote:  I will make it simple for those posters by only asking about one of those violent incursions by the US. Were the reasons for invading Iraq rational and did that invasion provide a positive result for both the Iraqi and US public.
Maybe and no. I've covered that at length elsewhere...


(26-06-2013 05:39 AM)JAH Wrote:  I find it interesting that some here have dismissed the OP and some subsequent posts as some form of US bashing and therefore can be ignored out of hand.

Some here? Really, now. Just name the names.

I, at least, did no such thing. I do think it's important to stress that the USA is no different in goals and methods than any other state. The differences lie in scope and power. It takes an understanding of that how and why to begin so much as imagining effecting a change. To open in terms too simplistic or reductive (arising though it may from a cynicism that is all to understandable) does not do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 08:26 AM
RE: Everlasting War
(26-06-2013 08:20 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  This is the Wolfowitz doctrine in action. Interfere in the affairs of every small nation of any significance to tip scales in favor of American power and American interests, despite any undesired effects for the countries people/the region. It makes sense when you have an expansionist threat like the USSR, but in 2013 the detrements begin to outweigh the benefits, at least for the average (non billionaire) citizen.

I have a few problems with Americas interventionist policy...

1) Since the 60's when the American people decided they would rather a little less than have the blood of innocents on their hands the government has propagandized every intervention from Panama to Afghanistan. The invasion of Panama was not about freedom, we put Noriega in power just years earlier, it wasn't about 1 dead soldier (the truth behind which is still fuzzy at best). It was about the Canal and US military bases...and the Americans where only greeted as heros in the rich, white upperclass Panama, which of course is where the media camped out....I could go on. The point being it should be up to the people to decide if they would rather 'free' Iraq or have a decent healthcare system, and it's not it's up to the media and it's up to the monied interests.

2) The war machine is either un-stable or un-sustainable. You can't spend 18% of GDP on the military and not have domestic crises/funding issues and you can't interfere with global affairs and maintain bases around the globe without it. You also can't spend 18% of the GDP and watch the bombers sit in their hangars and the tanks rust in their lots. A large military will be leveraged, warranted or not.

3) The Wolfowitz doctrine has a snowballing effect, every time we empower some ruthless dictator with American weapons him and his men will be the anti-american terrorists in 20 years. Every time we allow one government (Israel) to subjugate another (Palestine) for American profit we create a pocket of decent that will only be harder to deal with in the coming years.

...That being said I have played enough Civ to know that from a purely Nationalist/Expansionist (and the lynch pin in American economics is expansion, ceaseless expansion) standpoint that if you don't meddle in the affairs of your neighbors using the Truman doctrine (here take this money/food) and/or the Wolfowitz doctrine (spying, election rigging, bullying) so other power will and you will be worse off for it.

Completely agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Everlasting War
(25-06-2013 01:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 09:22 AM)Humakt Wrote:  What kinda statement is that? If I come across a rape, is it then ok for me to cop a quick feel and move on?

What on earth did our statement have to do with anything I said?

My dear chap, your far to clever an old stick for me to be teaching you or your elderly relatives to suck eggs.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: Everlasting War
(25-06-2013 12:22 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  1) The Syrian war was gonna happen regardless of US "intervention" or not, debunking your idea of this ever lasting war if it wasn't for America sticking it's nose in everything.

2) Arming rebels with weapons and actually committing troops are two entirely different things.

All true, but I just wanted to say....
I love your signature Thumbsup Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
26-06-2013, 07:35 PM
RE: Everlasting War
(26-06-2013 04:40 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 01:50 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What on earth did our statement have to do with anything I said?

My dear chap, your far to clever an old stick for me to be teaching you or your elderly relatives to suck eggs.

Are you just trolling?
Seriously, go back and read my OP and then your reply to said post.
Your reply makes no sense.

Quote:In their heyday, ALL great powers do so. Because they can.

This.
There have been few great powers throughout history that were in a position to better their position that didn't seize the opportunity to do so.
In fact I'm having a hard time trying to think of one... Consider

Even my country, New Zealand, exudes political influence/pressure and force upon smaller countries (Pacific Island nations mostly) to get what we want.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 08:38 AM
RE: Everlasting War
(22-06-2013 12:19 PM)Julius Wrote:  Now the United States is openly arming Syrian rebels in addition to the covert supplies and training previously supplied: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/...399.story. Looks like the US of A has found yet another war to fight and another evil foe to vanquish!

Many of you thought that an era of world peace was at hand once the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. WRONG! Since the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, the US of A is now free to fight wars all over the world - and they do! And there is no end in sight.

Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya...and now the USA is working on Syria. And maybe Iran
is next!

This is the Era of Everlasting War.

Enjoy.

What is funny is that the U.S. explanation for it's expansion was originally supposedly to help rid the world of communism, now that communism is gone they have to make up a new excuse, which makes the original excuse look like just that, only an excuse to expand an empire, just like the current excuse is only to expand an empire.

Democracy: it's so good the U.S. has had to bomb the fuck out of people and force them to accept it. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: