1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Can anyone tell me WHY we are still at war?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by pan6467, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Yucatan, Mexico
    I think it's a little of this and a little of that. The danger, and I do believe there is some danger, is being played up to increase the "scare the shit out of everyone factor." If the threat was that huge we'd be doing more to get more the missing material we know is out there. To my knowledge that's not been addressed in a serious way. Maybe it has and I just missed that news cycle, don't know. Whatever the case I believe the response to the threat is hyped big time to convince folks they need to be afraid, very afraid.
  2. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    why we are still at war.
  3. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Where a cymbal around when you need one.

    Actually, I used to be Database Manager for a Satellite Telecommunications Firm.
    Over my 3 years there, even the largest solar flare or storm barely affected the Geosynchronous Satellite or any of our North American communications.
    Even though we were ready for one to do so...nothing ever came of it.

    A EMP would have WAY more chance and impact than one of these.
    And I have nothing against scientists...since I have a background in Astrophysics.

    You're actually quite right here, sir.
    I wasn't joking when I said that America is not doing this for their own charity...far from it.

    They are arrogant and selfish...do as I say, not as I do.
    Paranoid and protective.
    They want the bombs...they think they have the right, the know-how, the discretion.

    And they do NOT want anyone else getting them if at all possible,
    ESPECIALLY one that is unstable and has a questionable agenda.

    Quite frankly, the only reason they haven't invaded North Korea is China. PERIOD.

    But...being the "non-liberal" I always say that I am...despite some progressive values,
    I can't say that I blame them...

    If I had a gun, and knew how to shoot it.
    Then I would NOT want the crazy bastard who throws the wild parties down the street to have one too.
    Call me biased.

    And if I had the chance to get away with going into his house and taking away that gun,
    then I'd likely do it.
    For some reason that just makes me feel a bit more comfortable. :rolleyes:
    And I don't care that I have one, and he doesn't get one too.
    Stop being crazy, then maybe I'd be a bit more reasonable.

    You don't see us going to attack Israel?? Or even thinking of it. Not a peep.
    They have a bit of control.
    They have nukes, does it make us happy...nah, but we're not worried about it either.
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  4. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Foggy Bottom
    Perhaps it is a matter of perspective.

    I have more confidence in the physicists and nuclear scientists who, while acknowledging the threat potential of an EMP, suggest that it is grossly exaggerated than I do the chicken hawk politicians who need to justify the never-ending “war on terrorism” by scaring the American public with such an unlikely threat, along with their defense industry cronies on their special commissions who just see dollar signs.

    Now I have to get dressed, eat breakfast, guzzle coffee and get to the office before the sun comes up (and another cup of coffee from the Starbucks in the lobby) to finish a report for a 9:00 meeting. (yes, I can be a procrastinator too).
    --- merged: Aug 20, 2012 8:45 AM ---
    Threat or Hype?
    The work of the EMP Commission has frequently been cited by hawks in and out of government to champion aggressive military policies and extravagant weapons programs. In September 2009, for example, a group called EMPACT America hosted a conference in Niagara, New York, headlined by Christian Right figure Mike Huckabee, to promote the idea that the threat of an EMP attack was a clear and present danger to the nation (see Robert Farley, “The EMP Threat: Lots of Hype, Little Traction,” Right Web, October 16, 2009). The event was cosponsored by Steuben Foods, whose owner, Henry Schwartz, is a vociferous backer of the EMP threat thesis. Discussing his rationale for putting on the conference, Schwartz told the Associated Press, "I've never lived in fear in my life, but I have to tell you, I'm in fear now." According to the AP, in an effort to prepare for an EMP attack Schwartz is “making plans to drill gas wells and water wells to make sure his food-processing plant in suburban Buffalo can continue to supply food in a crisis.”[5]

    Other high profile figures who have hyped the EMP threat are former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, a fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, and Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy.

    In May 2009, Gingrich told an audience at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, “Three small nuclear weapons at the right altitude would eliminate all electricity production in the United States. Which is why I have said publicly that I favor taking out Iranian and North Korean missiles on their sites.”[8]

    At the September 2009 EMPACT conference, Gaffney made an outlandish argument, claiming that “within a year of that attack, nine out of ten Americans would be dead. … That would be a world without America, as a practical matter. And that is exactly what I believe the Iranians are working towards.” According to Rob Farley, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Gaffney’s source “might have been William Graham, chair of the EMP Commission, who told the House Armed Services Committee last year [2008] that an EMP attack could so thoroughly damage the country’s electronic infrastructure—including its transportation and food and water delivery systems—that within a year only about 30 million Americans would still be alive.[9]

    However, both the work of the EMP Commission and the EMP threat thesis have been severely criticized. Observers have noted that the commission was chock-a-block with individuals who have been tightly connected to both the defense industry and ideologically hawkish advocacy groups (see “Conflicts of Interest” below).

    In addition, some of the claims of the commission have proved to be based on flimsy evidence. For example, in a 2005 report, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called into question the Senate testimony of Peter Pry, at that time a senior staffer for the EMP Commission, and now the president of the group that organized the 2009 EMP Conference, EMPACT America. In his testimony, Pry cited an article from an Iranian political-military journal as evidence that Iran believes an EMP attack is key to defeating the United States. But the Bulletin discovered a major distortion in Pry’s argument: “Just one small problem—the article never mentions EMP, or for that matter nuclear weapons...

    Many experts regard the purported threat as unlikely and unfeasible. In an effort to defuse the hype, the Project on Government Oversight cited an esteemed physicist: "If terrorists did manage to build a nuclear weapon, it is highly improbable that they could produce an efficient EMP-producing nuclear weapon, according to nuclear physicist Richard Garwin, who also published one of the first theoretical papers on EMP."[11]

    And in an article for Right Web, the University of Kentucky’s Farley writes, “Stephen Younger, former senior fellow at Los Alamos National Lab and director at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, argues that while an EMP might create problems in the short term, it is unlikely to cause long-term devastation. Similarly, observers have questioned the capacity of North Korea or Iran, much less a terrorist organization, to develop a warhead sophisticated enough to cause widespread EMP damage.” One expert told Farley, “You have a lot of points of failure in order to get to a warhead that is EMP optimized. … [Y]ou need specialized machine tools, you need capital, but to create a weapon that creates the secondary effect that you're talking about, that's something even we can't do right now.’”[12]

    EMP Commission - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2012
  5. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Well, if you're noting Newt Gingrich...sure I wouldn't trust anything the man told me, snake oil salesman.

    But it's not the EMP that the current adminstration is worried about (they really aren't war-mongers...just not anti-war...there's a difference)
    And the scientist is right...the secondary effect in a controlled situation is more difficult to attain.
    No, they are simply worried about a straight-forward (even minor) atomic explosion.

    Please remember, WE and most post-industrial nations, have incredible safe-guards against warheads being used.
    The same can't be said for Pakistan...
    Their stuff gets lose...

    Let's put it this way...you only have to be wrong ONCE.
    I don't trust my luck to that unstable unreliable nation....and so we're taking steps.

    Now, Yes...the military industrial complex...the contractors, the ones that buy Newt's vote, or did...they you can't trust.
    But I didn't see that attitude within the current administration...so it's likely another matter of great worry.
    Obama is too money anxious right now to be investing that much money without good reason.
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

  7. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Yucatan, Mexico

    One thing I see wrong with the graphic is Grenada lasted 21 days. Started on Oct. 25 and Ended on Dec. 15th all in 1983. That's just off the top of my head. So don't see how anyone could count it as two years. Really most of the fighting was on the first day and was over by noon. Maybe they're are other things wrong, don't know would have to check it out more.
  8. Plan9 FORMAT C:

    This Island Earth
    Yeah, that graphic is straight trollin'. Desert Storm lasted how long?

    And why is OIF listed as 2003-2011? Where is Operation New Dawn?
  9. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    According to trustworthy Wikipedia, combat operations began on October 25, 1983, and ended on December 15, 1983. However, there was this as well:
    Invasion of Grenada (1983) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It might sound familiar. I mean, what are "security missions"? What, exactly, is "assistance"?

    Elections were held the following December.

    A few things:

    1) I never view these things as trustworthy scholarship; I view them as making a point. These things usually have inaccuracies, but is the point entirely lost?

    2) Do one of you want to make a corrected list? Maybe a countertally of that ever-elusive "peacetime America"?

    3) I guess a lot of this entirely depends on one's definition of "at war."
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  10. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Uhh...Indian American War were periodic battles and skirmishes
    (not our best time...but not the range noted here)

    The Cold War was NOT a war but a symbolic description.

    Grenada was a few days
    Panama a few weeks

    Desert Storm maybe a couple of months
    United Sheild??
    Determined Falcon??

    Come ON.

    Let's be honest.
    Canada has blood of pure driven snow...I don't think so.
    If you're going to note "wars" as you're doing...then I think you should list yours out.
    Including your OWN indian wars
    And those you were a part of. (including WWI, WWII, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...)

    EVERY friggin country has got military actions to note. (or "police action" or espionage...and so on...)
    No one is pure.

    I'm not saying the US is the best & brightest...but be real here.
    Those that live in glass houses...

    I tell you what...you list out all the "wars" that these countries have been in too over their history.
    England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, Japan, Mexico, Columbia, Congo, Australia, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Libya, Iran, Israel, India...
    ...and so on (I whip out Wikipedia here too)

    I guess I'm trying to make a point here.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  11. Tully Mars

    Tully Mars Very Tilted

    Yucatan, Mexico
    Well I'm not going to go read your link, least not right now. Not that I don't respect your source or opinion but, obviously I do. But- one I have dinner plans and need to get going and two- I'm getting ready to run a spyware program. I've got some BS "dealply" running in the background and can't seem to get rid of it. And finally because I know guys who were there. They tell me other then some students they spent a day or two looking for all the shots/combat missions were over the first day. To me war is when the bullets are flying. After that it's an occupation. Which bring me to why exactly isn't Korea on the list?

    Isn't that the truth. I see where they have the "cold war" lasting for decades. That's not really war to me, more the opposite of war. Or maybe they're lumping Korea in with a lot of other little stuff and saying it never really stopped. Don't know.

    If the entire point is "Merica loves it some war" then I guess I agree. I was watching some talking head cable news guy one day and he said "to the man with a big hammer ever problem begins to look like a nail and the US has one big hammer when it comes to it's military." I agree.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    I guess that's what we're all tryin' to do here.

    I guess the point is that with the kind of military expenditures the U.S. has, there had better be a justification for it.

    I mean, how else do you get away with a thing of such grotesque proportions?

    No, Canada's history isn't "clean." But do you really want to compare Canada's 20th century military history with America's? Do you really want to go there?

    I think, generally, the issue is that America's approach to military action is disproportionate. Wealth has a lot to do with that, I suppose. But there are obviously other issues.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  13. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    i don't see a giant problem with the graphic. i can see particular objections, but not to the overall point of it.

    for example the genocide of the native americans---and it was nothing less than that---operated in more and less visible phases. but there's not a whole lot of doubt that it was basically a continuous conflict, at times on the surface, at times less so, that lasted from the earliest phase of the european invasion until after wounded knee. hell, depending on what you think the 1617 hepatitis epidemic was (it's apparently not obvious what it was) you can even say that it began before the colonization started.

    the cold war...this is a different animal. hell, clausewitz had already established a direct continuity where one already existed anyway between politics and war. they're simply variants of the same thing. industrialized war is not primarily about events. most of it is process. to think otherwise would be to imagine the history channel version of war accurate and that it's a series of battles. but--obviously---most of war is logistics. if it wasn't obvious in the american civil war (which began when exactly? 1861? what about kanasas for 7-8 years before that? didn't happen? not war? ended in 1865? what about the guerilla bands that didn't stop fighting for some time thereafter? this event-oriented view of history is pretty thin gruel, folks) then it should have been obvious with world war 1.

    the cold war was continuous war as process. war is what? procurement, logistics, expenditure. explicit conflicts---those pesky phases of unpredictability---do not define modern war. the united states converted into a state of permanent war with the formalization of the national security state doctrine in 1948 and the process of consolidation of the broader national-security state in the years that followed. you could argue, and with reason, that, because the united states never stood down from the cold war and because the national-security state procurement system is still not only operational but is a significant dimension of the american economy, that the cold war is *still* not over from a process viewpoint. it's just changed designated enemies. like happened in orwell.

    and we've all learned because of vietnam and other delightful actions on that order that formal declarations of war do not define war, right? unless you'd rather argue the opposite and then find yourself claiming vietnam either was not a war or did not happen.

    btw this raises a kind of strange question about drone war. from a certain viewpoint, the problem with drones has more to do with the slow decline from a hegemonic position of the united states than the logic of drone war itself.
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  14. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Yes, but...and I'm not trying to deflect from the US mistakes of the past or present.
    Some of those same wars or military actions were provoked from without. America has been isolationist at one time or another.
    - Revolutionary War was one of independence.
    - Civil War was in itself.
    - WWI we were pulled into Europe's mess.
    - WWII same thing AND we were attacked on the other side.
    - War of 1812 was the Brits again

    Yes, America has a HUGE military budget, disproportionate in size...one I would love to trim. (I'm not a chicken hawk)
    But the much of the world also asks us to continually get involved. (which is not to say that we don't push some ourselves)
    There's a reason they call America often "The World's Policeman"
    We pay for that.

    What would other countries budgets be if we didn't??
    Canada itself benefits from being in America's backyard...what would YOUR budget be if you didn't have that??
    What if we just let it go back to WWI, when America was isolationist...and let the world slowly boil over?

    The Gulf War...let Saddam have Kuwait.
    Libya, let Quadaffi continue his reign.

    We haven't gotten involved in Syria...the Congo, Sudan, South Africa, Tibet, Venezuela....
    Many of the countries which LIBERALS have wanted the US to go in and "right wrongs, do justice and setup a democracy"
    Stopping a genocide is just as messy as ANY other war or military action or police action or whatever...
    Even Afghanistan many LIBERALS cheered, because we were stopping the Taliban.
    Or even Iraq...that was "justified"...I saw many votes and conversations from our more "fair-minded" brethen when that just started...

    Does America refrain from military sometimes, yes. (be honest)
    Does America sometime get involved where it shouldn't, yes.
    Does America sometimes defend itself, yes.
    Does America go overboard sometimes, yes.
    It's complicated.

    But I think in "relative" terms...we haven't done TOO bad.
    We haven't done genocide. (unless you want to count the accumlative effects of all the indian battles over the years....yes that is bad)
    We don't do long-term colonies in direct authority (even Puerto Rico and Guam have the vote and the chance to become states)
    We don't take over other countries without giving them their independence back. (again, unless you want to count the indian territories)

    So in terms of our actions vs the rest of the world, we're not bad.
    And the Indian sin is Canada's too. (both in terms of battles and territory)

    And ironically enough, the same nukes we are scared to death of getting out
    are the same that has prevented WW scale wars and Post-Industrial nation wars for a long time (M.A.D.)

    Can America be nosy, aggressive and arrogant at times. YES.
    But we're also NOT a bully or a tyrant.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2012
  15. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    the united states is built on genocide. it's not a happy fact. the slogan for its acceleration was "manifest destiny.." but that didn't change the situation. it merely tacked a slogan on it. it has posed a curious ethical problem. ever consider why so many western films were as they were? you know, extended justifications for genocide?

    of course that doesn't mean it was, like, a war crime or anything. even had there been international conventions that defined the idea at the time it wouldn't have been one. the only real war crime is losing a war. but i would have thought that obvious.

    since world war 2, the american system has worked via neo-colonialism. why bother with direct occupation of other countries when you can dominate their economies? the objectives are the same...control of resources necessary for production. from the banana republic model to more modern uses of structural adjustment as a means of forcing southern hemisphere countries to absorb us overproduction of commodities like milk, wheat and corn (that's why this year's drought will be a very very bad thing for place you wouldn't expect) while at the same time forcing the conversion of local economies into largely export-based production (think about cocoa in west africa if you need an example).
  16. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Well, that's the thing. This war business is...well...business. America went into Kuwait. Why didn't it go into Tibet? Does it have anything to do with the difference between vast oil reserves and subsistence agriculture?
  17. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Yes...there is that aspect...some national self-interest.
    But isn't that true for ANY country, most people??
    To take an idea to an extreme...you could even say that charity may incorporate some self-satisfaction and fulfillment for what is done.
    I've read studies on such... How come you do this charity instead of that?? How come you're not saving the WORLD??

    Limited resources? Limited time? Need to attend to other matters? Preference on one charity over another??
    Oh, certainly those ideas can't be applied to the VAST, UNLIMITED, UNSTOPPABLE American nation!

    Or perhaps they can...
    As an American citizen...I certainly don't want to pay for all adventures...for all the world's turmoils.
    Supposedly Americans also give to global charities more than any other country...that's what I've read. Is this wrong?
    Isn't there any responsibility of any other country to do anything?
    Won't they have their own interests? Or is it TOTAL selfless thought?

    Certainly, I'll admit...oil may have been a factor over agriculture. It's more of a commodity at the moment...we export much agriculture.
    But this could switch...
    America just found fuel reserves larger than the Middle East...it's just more Natural Gas than oil...and it hasn't been fully implemented yet.
    Climate change just fried our crops...Corn, Soy, etc...have sky rocketed this year...not as much to export, food prices will go crazy.
    So "maybe" the next war will be agriculture...not oil.

    Military actions are done for many reasons...greed, need, politics and more...
    It's not just the US.

    Try to figure out why we do war...what we may to do to refrain from it...find alternatives to attain our goals.
    But don't make this into an "I'm disgusted with America" thing.

    We've got our problems...but we're not evil incarnate either.
    Quite frankly...I'm more worried about Congress getting their act together.
    Because if they don't,
    then who's going to check the military from doing what they want??

    Much less do the right thing for the country itself...
  18. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like a tu quoque, strawman one-two punch.

    I did read the rest of your post, but I didn't want to requote the whole thing.

    The problem as I see it is that America is constantly looking for a moral justification for this and that. Those of us who are intelligent enough know that there is also self-interest, national security, etc. However, people like the warm fuzziness of being morally justified to use violence against an "evil other" to stop them from being so "evil" so that "good" can reign. The world doesn't actually work that way. Ask Tibetans, Somalis, Rwandans, North Koreans, etc.

    So your fallacy, if it is so, isn't a serious transgression; it's a natural response to a fucked-up world where things happen for reasons, and those reasons, as you've pointed out, have to do with money, power, and politics. America will pump money, military might, and other resources into some parts of the world (sometimes a hell of a lot, sometimes for a hell of a long time), while other parts of the world burn (think of parts of Africa and Asia). Why does this happen? Much of it comes down to geopolitics.

    The American armed forces aren't in the business of doing good in the world. They aren't out there for truth and justice.
  19. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Yes...but "unfortunately" I am one of those intelligent enough to know that we act in our own self-interests. (ignorance is bliss???)
    The "powers that be" are executing for that often.
    But having been inside...I also often saw simple desire to do the right thing. (or aquiessing to others asking to help or be helped)
    So as with often occurs with reality...things are not black or white...either or...but a complicated mix of good/bad, agenda/ideal.

    MOST of the masses, you are right...need to wrap themselves around a rationalization...a picture...an ideal.
    I'm not that easy a mark.

    And you're right to a certain extent...they aren't doing good always...aren't doing right.
    And you're wrong to a certain extent...we ARE doing good...we ARE doing it for truth & justice.
    You're fooling yourself with your own false notion if you think otherwise.
    It's both.
    And many complex diverse gordian knot scenarios in-between.

    It's not that easy.

    I tell you what...you have a baby...for yourself.
    A bad guy comes and tries to do something to that baby.
    There are no police nearby...and you have a gun...or knife...or your fists.
    Are you going to let that baby be hurt??

    Ok, that's an extreme example...pretty easy.
    Next...you're a leader of a town in the old west...you've build up your town, you've got families that are productive. No conflict so far.
    Indians for whatever reason are massing on the edge of town...with guns. Seems you're near some sacred area they don't want you near.
    They are about to attack you, your families and town ...for some ambiguous abtract your's not sure about.
    Do you get guns to protect yourselves???

    What is drought comes...your family, friends, children...they're starving from lack of food.
    There's a nice river nearby to draw and irrigate from...those same Indians are saying that this is their territory...
    or that's it's sacred again...stubborn, rigid...even hostile in tone.
    There's no other resource for MILES....
    Do you let your children starve??

    Let's not say they are Indians...maybe they are simple bad guys attacking.
    But they aren't harming you...they are going after the town some miles away...a good town, good people...lots of friends there...
    They're asking for help...you're smelling smoke...
    And you're thinking to yourself...oh, damn...those cattle we were going to eat are there...

    Am I justifying violence??? No.
    But I am saying that it isn't the conspiracy you think it is...all of the greed you think it is. (ok, Dick Cheney may be this way...but he's almost iconic :rolleyes: )
    Most conspiracy when proven...it more of a CYA.
    Most actions are taken for VERY complex reasons...the agenda and morality is ambiguous.
    Governments are made of many people...and America is not despotic.
    So many people are pushing forward decisions including military for many reasons...some good, some bad...and all that inbetween.

    The Iraq war...I'd agree with you on, GWB was a dupe...he let Cheney and Rumsfeld lead him into shit storm for oil.
    And they got everyone else to follow according to what was a 911 pitch and wrapping the flag around them.
    And most will tell you now after the fact, it was a bullshit call.

    The other wars...I'm not so sure on...those were a bit more complicated...even Vietnam.
    I think that was more like the current Afghanistan.
    Start on a terrorist note and heroic note...for decent reasons. (even liberals liked that we kicked the Taliban's butt)
    We took the eye off the ball to focus on Iraq
    And it became a festering lingering wound....then we had to double-down because we were not worried about them...but their neighbors.
    And it has gone WAY longer than it ever should have.

    The only big difference in the citizens attitude is because there is no draft...it's isolated to volunteers/careerists.
    So the selfish personal impact to most is not felt as it did with 'Nam.
    What it is costing besides good men & women is TONS of money...which we can't afford.
    And our attempts at cleaning it up are poor...because the Afghani leadership is more corrupt than Jabba the Hutt.

    Maybe this is why we're not in Syria?
    Why don't you ask Turkey about that? Russia? Israel? Iran?
    They seem interested and involved.
    US is occupied. Seems that we're limited on attention and resources. Or there isn't an agenda.

    Then again...you tell me why we're over in Afghanistan?
    I don't think we're after their opium.
    It isn't Oil... They don't have much of anything.
    hmm...could it be something else???
  20. oracle2380

    oracle2380 New Member

    It is interesting to me that there are folks out there in the world who complain about US interference. For some situations, I can see the basis for the complaints. We tend to meddle in political arenas where probably have no business and stir the hornets nest from time to time. It has occurred to me, however, that it is these same folks who accuse the US of not getting involved when their asses are falling in the fire. The US has fallen victim to the dual-edged sword of expectation from both internal and external parties. We have become a nation of expected results and reaction to the woes of a world which doesn't want our help until they need it... Politicians are pushed into action by public opinion (perceived or reality) and potential campaign contributors to make decisions which often have a global effect. On the whim of a call for aid from some third world country that they have never heard of, young men and women leave their lives and families behind for a country they were not forced to serve. As noted above US armed forces is an all volunteer military fighting force.
    Who do you blame for the interference? Can you as a rational person blame those who serve? I personally think the US should take a Woodrow Wilson stance and retract our military from all other countries for a few years, quit paying countries "debts" for beating them in a war or battle before 70% of the US population was even born. If you think other governments around the world will allow that to happen, you have got another thing coming. The political conundrum that exists within the international political community is an ugly mess that has been created by the leaders around the world creating ridiculous treaties and partnerships for temporary gains. I freely admit that most of the issues the US is facing to day are due to shortsighted gains from 20 years ago.
    Then again why are we in Afghanistan 12 years after the initial invasion? As a country it is sinkhole of financial investments. Every cent that enters the government falls right out of the piggy bank's belly into some project that is bound to fail or fall victim to embezzlement. The generals, all being the type-A personality types, can not stand the idea that a nation that hasn't right since the mid 60's didn't get fixed during their respective watches. The Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen of the US Armed Forces actually want to fix this broken nation. We have invested so much as a nation that to leave before the afghans know that there is even ground upon which to rest their feet is to admit the worst kind of failure; We did not try, care, or do enough to affect a positive change. Then again who am I to say what motivates a nation, but at the same time who are you?
    • Like Like x 1