logo Sign In

The $$$ spent on the war on terror — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


Ric, do you honestly believe this?

I don't support any dictatorship, but as Obi Jee said, there is a matter of threat assessement. The United States, a super-power though it may be, does not have unlimited resources or unlimited resolve. The dictator ships of South America don't present a direct threat to the United States, not in the way the Middle East does. The United States can't fix everything, but I sincerely believe that Iraq was and Iran, and North Korea are problems we MUST start tackling.

As for why we've supported some dictators? Two things. One, hindsight is 20/20, and two, the old addage about the lesser of two evils. At the time we supported Hussein, he was the lesser of two evils in the minds of the leaders of the US. In the 21st century, things changed; there is no USSR (at the moment at least), and the greatest threat to the lives of Americans and other peaceful nations is concentrated in the Middle East, in the form of terrorist organizations and Islamofacist dictatorships.

It seems to me like you're trying to make everything black and white. It never is in international politics. No nation is 100% good, but in the case of the war on terror, there are nations whose leadership is 100% evil, and in that case it should be completely clear where the enemy is.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...


But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?


It isn't, but just to be able to answer your question I oversimplified these terms. To be completely honest to what I belive, no war is ever justifiable because we should be able to prevent them to take place, by providing education, by providing assistance in other areas, by political acts, by the action from it's own people.

BUT people try to mine this way of thinking saying that military actions are the only way to handle these situations, only violence can solve these sort of things and yet... that is not the real reason why countries go to war.

There's no samaritan, altruistic reason for going to war, it's all for the money it generates, and hidden behind this scheme there's a brainwashing on who pays for those wars to take place - we are all paying while we consume - and that brainwashing hides the scheme by using peer preassuer build patriotism, fear, and a sense of doing the right thing, by getting rid of "evil-doers".

But not all of them, eh? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, all these places never appear on TV. And giving money and WEAPONS to Saddam, well that never happened. Sshh.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...


But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?


It isn't, but just to be able to answer your question I oversimplified these terms. To be completely honest to what I belive, no war is ever justifiable because we should be able to prevent them to take place, by providing education, by providing assistance in other areas, by political acts, by the action from it's own people.

BUT people try to mine this way of thinking saying that military actions are the only way to handle these situations, only violence can solve these sort of things and yet... that is not the real reason why countries go to war.

There's no samaritan, altruistic reason for going to war, it's all for the money it generates, and hidden behind this scheme there's a brainwashing on who pays for those wars to take place - we are all paying while we consume - and that brainwashing hides the scheme by using peer preassuer build patriotism, fear, and a sense of doing the right thing, by getting rid of "evil-doers".

But not all of them, eh? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, all these places never appear on TV. And giving money and WEAPONS to Saddam, well that never happened. Sshh.


You forgot Rwanda...it seems you want to have it both ways. If violence breaks out in an area of the world that we "don't care about" will education in Cuba solve the problem? Aren't more immediate solutions needed in the face of crises? Educating and feeding the world are great ideas, but they are long term ones that can easily be abbrogated when the "educating" country's rulers decide to annex Poland, or most of Eastern Europe, or wipe Israel off the map, for example.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


Ric, do you honestly believe this?

I don't support any dictatorship, but as Obi Jee said, there is a matter of threat assessement. The United States, a super-power though it may be, does not have unlimited resources or unlimited resolve. The dictator ships of South America don't present a direct threat to the United States, not in the way the Middle East does.


So Saddam was a treat to the United States in which way? Through weapons of mass destruction? How much of a threat to america is Saddam compared to Idi Amin Dada, who would personally torture and EAT the flesh from his enemies and killed 300 thousand people in Uganda? Let's see, Saddam ruling Iraq had a war with Iran, and the US sold him weapons and gave him support. Then he invaded Kwait and the US had economical interests there, so there was the gulf war. Next, on the peak of war on terror, the invasion of Iraq based on non-existant weapons of mass destruction - when South Korea, Pakistan and Iran are posing even greater threat.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


Ric, do you honestly believe this?

I don't support any dictatorship, but as Obi Jee said, there is a matter of threat assessement. The United States, a super-power though it may be, does not have unlimited resources or unlimited resolve. The dictator ships of South America don't present a direct threat to the United States, not in the way the Middle East does.


So Saddam was a treat to the United States in which way? Through weapons of mass destruction? How much of a threat to america is Saddam compared to Idi Amin Dada, who would personally torture and EAT the flesh from his enemies and killed 300 thousand people in Uganda? Let's see, Saddam ruling Iraq had a war with Iran, and the US sold him weapons and gave him support. Then he invaded Kwait and the US had economical interests there, so there was the gulf war. Next, on the peak of war on terror, the invasion of Iraq based on non-existant weapons of mass destruction - when South Korea, Pakistan and Iran are posing even greater threat.


First of all, Iraq's not having weapons of mass destruction is irrelevant, because our intelligence indicated that they did, and they clearly wanted us to think they did. Not only that, but leaving them alone would give them ample time to develop them. I don't know anything about Idi Amin Dada, but again, we can't fix everything.

I wish that some of the other nations that keep wishng the US would do something about these other dictators would step up to the plate and attack themselves. The US is already commited long-term in the Middle East, and taking on every third-world thug and dictator around the world, all at once would spread our resources far too thin.

4

Author
Time
Post link

This thread makes me sad.

All these years latter and all we have done is spend more money and things have just gotten worse.  When are we just going to get out of the middle east and stop giving people reasons to hate us?

When are we going to stop throwing lives and money away for no good reason.