Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Americans Addicted To War?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Well, Centurion, I can post what I like, because I'm not using my real name. If I were, I'd be a little more concious about what I write. I can tell you from personla experience that freedoms are taken away when it is convenient for those in power.

I've been held in jail for a week without a phone call, or a lawyer. I've been beaten, and denied the right to be recognized by my own name. All by officers claiming to protect and serve.

I'll say it again, if you're a good little monkey, they won't put you in a cage.

As for War, there have only been brief periods in American History in which we haven't been at war.


www.rationalrevolution.net...

Often, the only benefits to these wars being strategic military points for the next war. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where we can't do anything about it. Because of the selfish ways of many administrations, the US has developed enemies. Enough enemies that we must always be on guard for fear of being shot.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Rasobasi420]

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Rasobasi420]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 6/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
centurion1211 - I'm not sure where you get this 'envy' concept, do you really think the World envies you? That all the people of Europe would willing give up what we have in return for what you have? Sorry to tell you this isn't the case.

Re you defending 'what we feel is ours to defend' - where does this stop? The perception given is that the US will decide that anything on the planet is 'ours to defend' and do so with threats or force and yet choses to regularly ignore other viewpoints on the planet (Kyoto, the UN etc etc) - doesn't this strike you as hypocritical?


It's quite a natural reaction to try and bring down what you perceive to be greater than yourself. Children (and smaller, more backward countries) do it now and barbarians did it in the past. Of course, no one would ever be able to admit that they had fallen victim to their own base instincts. Right?

Kyoto? Do you mean the 'agreement' that said the U.S. had to cripple it's economy while China and other gross polluters did not have to do anything to cut their emissions? Gee, why would you or any reasonable person expect that the U.S. would go along with it? And the UN
where do we start with the corruption there? How about the oil for food program that had Kofi Annan's son raking in the big money? Again, the UN - all too often - resembles nothing more than the sqabbling of children.

And Rasobasi420, nice graphic. Another way to interpret the graph is that it looks like the wars make up only a small fraction of the time the U.S. has existed.

Sorry to hear of your experiences. Can't imagine what might have caused that to happen. All I know is that, as a law-abiding citizen, I have no fear of what you describe happening to me.


[edit on 7/6/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The Reagon/bush administration (which we still live under today) was a renewal of an effort by the military industrial complex to ingrain itself into our economy as a neccessary measure.
Clinton tried to restructure that, and got blasted by the republicans for "leaving us undefended"

If Americans would wholesale reject war, then we would loose about 1 trillion from our economy... and it would continue to affect us, as the effect of unemplyment hits, and the resultant recession...

In short... America is a country built by war, and thanks to the sell out of our manufacturing base to other countries, it is one of the few things we can make money with...

Truly... I know it sounds extreme... but think about how much money is made off the arms dealing program of America...

for a bit of detail here, see this article on our arms dealing policy.


american arms dealing- arming the world!



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
If there is such an addiction, the US is not the only one afflicted with it. To be perfectly honest I think appeasement is the bigger addiction. The attitude of much of the world seems to be "If I bury my head in the sand maybe the bad things might go away.". Bad news, they won't. The US tried it in the late 70's, the 80's and much of the 90's. What did it get us? Our embassy overrun, its people held hostage. Over 300 Marines and embassy personel killed, others held hostage, some executed. Our aircraft hijacked or blown up. For years the safest thing any terrrorist group could do was to kill US citizens. Finally after years of hanging out the carrot we decided to use the stick. We should have used the stick a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
How 'bout the simple right to dissent? Pier 57 ring a bell? What about my freedom to allow my customers to smoke in my establishment? Probably shouldn't steer this thread any further off track by talking about the knock and announce ruling, and it's affect on personal dignity. We could have an entire forum devoted to privacy issues, and some could even question our right to the ability to elect our own officials.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
To be perfectly honest I think appeasement is the bigger addiction. The attitude of much of the world seems to be "If I bury my head in the sand maybe the bad things might go away.". Bad news, they won't.


Such an excellent post. The truth to many posters here seems to be that hiding and hoping the nastiness passes you by is so much easier than taking a stand for your beliefs. Because in taking a stand, you might have to involve yourself in some
unpleasant things. To me, the people that run, hide and try to appease are the real "sheeple".



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

In short... America is a country built by war, and thanks to the sell out of our manufacturing base to other countries, it is one of the few things we can make money with...



Thats a pretty bold statement. A country that has won or lost wars and has demobilized in the past. Now why would a country that is depended on wars be demobilizing its military forces to the point of only being adequate. You could say that prior to WW1 we had a really small army compare to even smaller European nations. You could say that our military prior to WW2 was only adequate enough to protect itself, even with FDR's funding for the U.S. Navy which he is pro Navy. But otherwise we had barely few tanks and old rifles. Other countries were far ahead of America which you say is a country built for war. Even after WW2 our military was demobilized, men and boys sent home, many of our ships being mothballed. You could say that even after the Civil War men and boys were sent home when we had over a million men in arms that could invade Canada with ease, but we didn't take advantage of that (supposedly since the US of A is considered a conqueror). A country built for war.
We spend about 5% of our GDP for the military. Not 50%, not 60%. Not even 100%.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
The land of hippies, green issues and feminism seems to have transmogrified into an isolationist, bullying, war-addicted, expansionist aggressor that sees threats everywhere.


Yeah, that happens every once in a while. We swing back and forth. Hey, we pretty much stayed out of World War I until the very end, and would have never even bothered with World War II if we hadn't been attacked. One of the big reasons a lot of our ancestors came to America in the first place was so we wouldn't have to keep getting involved with all the fighting. So we're kind of naturally isolationistic.

As far as our addiction to war is concerned, a lot of it has to do with being forced into wars over the last century or so as the British and French empires crumbled. If you look at the hot spots, they're almost all associated with power struggles in countries that used to be territories of either the British or French. As "allies," we got sucked into the conflicts.

Now we have a couple of problems we're not sure how to handle. We have the biggest military anybody has ever seen, and it employs literally millions of people. It's become our most successful business. And along with that, we've been taught that we can't be isolationist, and that far-away wars are our responsibility. If there's a cruelty in the world, because we have the power to stop it, we have a responsibility to stop it. And we have to protect our own interests, which have grown to be worldwide because we need so many resources to keep our military functioning.

If we suddenly all decided we've had enough of fighting people all over the globe, and we cut our military down to a quarter of its size, what would happen? We'd have millions of people instantly out of work, which would put us and the rest of the world into a bad depression. Along with that, a lot of scumbags would use that depression to build their own political parties and armies and cause all kinds of trouble (like widespread conflict and genocide), just like Germany did in the 1930s.

So what are we supposed to do? You tell us.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I mispoke myself when i said America was built by war...
"It has grown to its present state by war" would be accurate...

We have been using the stick for decades... just not on a big enough scale to be widely known...
but if you lived in columbia, or nicaragua, or el salvador, you would witness this addiction to war, rather than peace...

all this new war is, is a profit increase based upon better sales, to a larger customer base...

I wish i could beleive that it was about security, or "justice, truth, and the American way" but that doesn't fly, when you look at the various countries that actuall NEED our help, and have appealed for it, but lacked the oil, or wealth to "deserve our bringing of freedom".

Saddam was no worse than so many tyrants of the past... so what made us act this time...
Oh, yeah... i forgot... they attacked us on 9-11,
or wait.... wasn't it that they had WMD?
.. like so many others we have sold it to...

or maybe it was to boost the export business, and import oil business all in one stroke...

just a game of supply and demand, with profit as our leader...

eisenhower warned us... the Military industrial complex would get us... and it has...
now we have to be at war, to supply jobs, and a stable economy
otherwise, we suffer from all the many ways that the war provides for us (good jobs mainly)

[edit on 6-7-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Explain to me how the buildup of the largest world military is an example of burying our heads in the sand? By the Reagan ere we had the ability to blow up the planet umpteen times over. I find that to be a far cry from burying our head in the sand.

BTW I pity anyone who thinks that War is always the only answer.
When all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
.

BTW I pity anyone who thinks that War is always the only answer.
When all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails.


Either war or peace can be achieve. The question is what would you do prior to WW2?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
How 'bout the simple right to dissent? Pier 57 ring a bell?


No, it doesn't "ring a bell". I see, hear and read people dissenting every day. They are all still doing it today and I'm sure they'll be there tomorrow. Your point was?


What about my freedom to allow my customers to smoke in my establishment?


Oh, come on. After all this moaning and gnashing of teeth, that's the biggest loss of freedom you can come up with? BTW, wasn't the source of the anti-smoking in public movement California (think what that means)? Thanks for so eloquently supporting the earlier points that no real freedoms have been lost.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Personally, I lost the right to an attorney
The right for a speedy trial,
My phone calls
Freedom of assembly
Rights to privacy


Any one can list those......how have you been affected?

Why don't you have the right to an attorney?
The right to a sppedy trial?
What about your phone calls?
Freedom of assembly?...........example?
How has your rights to privacy been affected?

The fact is nothing has happened to you and anyone close to you that would actually validate any of the ways you where 'effected'.

Do some research and stop spouting proproganda.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
The fact is nothing has happened to you and anyone close to you that would actually validate any of the ways you where 'effected'.

Do some research and stop spouting proproganda.


I love how you just say 'fact is' without any knowledge on the subject. Just as I can say "fact is, you've never seen the sun-set over Niagra falls." when in actuality I don't know if you've ever been there.

Just as you don't know that I spent nearly a week without council or a phone call after a peacful protest against the death penalty. Fact is, you wouldn't know about that becasue you haven't done your own research on the subject. Fact is, if it doesn't have to do with Mountain Dew, you probably don't care.

Fact is, unless you know the facts, let's stop using 'fact is'.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

Do some research and stop spouting proproganda.


Uh, pier 57 is a prime example of everything you just dismissed.

Masses were incarcerated for assembling.
They were assembling in dissent.
They were held without being charged.
They were denied their right to council.
They were held for days without food, vital medication was confiscated, these people were cut off from the outside world, no phone call, no lawer, no charges, just the Republican Party's private little Gauntanamo. Only these were not enemy combatants.

Pier 57 was leased by the Republican party with the sole intention of housing protesters. Tell me these people were allowed to exercise their right to dissent.

Remember Portland in '02? What happened to those peoples right to dissent? Refresher

[edit on 7/6/2006 by Unit541]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
All of the rights named by Rasobasi420 have been violated before, but (big but here) I'd have to say that they are at the small level. You can't say that every cop, every jurisdiction, every town council, has always done the right thing. Its obvious that they haven't. But is it institutional? By no means.

I think it may be better to say there is an erosion of rights. The 2nd ammendment is very clear, yet there are political movements to modify its meaning, and to reinterperet it to the detriment of the citizenry. That's the best example I can think of right now. Or what about posing amendments to the Constitution prohibiting gay marraige? This isn't a right that's being removed, but it is an effort to make sure that no right is afforded. Its pretty close.

As to the original direction of the thread, the premise seems a little melodramatic to me. If the US was addicted to war, and I would think with that addiction would come a desire for victory every time (war isn't much fun if you loose all the time), wouldn't most of the world be under US dominion? There really wouldn't be any issue of communist insurgancies in Central America. We'd just crush it. No need to keep peace in the Balkans when we could just dismantle the govts there and turn it into a protectorate. Yes the econmy is helped by the military industrial complex, but stock in those companies aren't restricted to domestic investors.

Maybe if I see someone on the street delerious and shaking, saying "man I just gotta kill somebody that don't speak English" I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll just say the biggest addiction in the US is internet porn, and thank you Al Gore for that!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

It's quite a natural reaction to try and bring down what you perceive to be greater than yourself. Children (and smaller, more backward countries) do it now and barbarians did it in the past. Of course, no one would ever be able to admit that they had fallen victim to their own base instincts. Right?

Kyoto? Do you mean the 'agreement' that said the U.S. had to cripple it's economy while China and other gross polluters did not have to do anything to cut their emissions? Gee, why would you or any reasonable person expect that the U.S. would go along with it? And the UN
where do we start with the corruption there? How about the oil for food program that had Kofi Annan's son raking in the big money? Again, the UN - all too often - resembles nothing more than the sqabbling of children.



[edit on 7/6/2006 by centurion1211]


'More backward'? on what evidence do you base that statement? We live in Europe 'you know, where the culture comes from' - Eddy Izzard - we don't see oursleves as backward (quite the opposite in fact). Your self-delusional prejudices are showing.

Kyoto was an agreement (no quotes!!) signed by many countries in the World but ignored by the US central govt. Many US city mayors have realised the implications of such a refusal for the World and the US's reputation and have committed their cities to meeet the Kyoto requirements unilaterally. The US could have proposed an alternative way of meeting the targets but instead just plain refused to enter into the debate.

Don't know where you get the 'cripple the economy' from it was just trying to address the situation where the US consumes 25% of the world's resources - y'all may think this is fine and dandy but clearly the World doesn't

The UN represents the will of the voting countries, it's there for more than just applying justification to the latest crusade! For the US govt to accuse anyone of corruption is hypocritical in the extreme. How about buying elections (JFK) or ensuring your son gets the job (GWB) or your brother (Jeb)?

Pot/Kettle?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
If there is such an addiction, the US is not the only one afflicted with it. To be perfectly honest I think appeasement is the bigger addiction. The attitude of much of the world seems to be "If I bury my head in the sand maybe the bad things might go away.". Bad news, they won't. The US tried it in the late 70's, the 80's and much of the 90's. What did it get us? Our embassy overrun, its people held hostage. Over 300 Marines and embassy personel killed, others held hostage, some executed. Our aircraft hijacked or blown up. For years the safest thing any terrrorist group could do was to kill US citizens. Finally after years of hanging out the carrot we decided to use the stick. We should have used the stick a long time ago.


So, basically you generalize one accident as an excuse to start wars everywhere you think it is required? In my opinion there's no legal reason for the invasion of Iraq.

I might misinterprent your claims, but bear in mind the US created the problems of which the entire world carries the burden now, not the other way around. Bin Laden and Hussein were both supported in both military and financially terms by the US.


[edit on 6-7-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
hogtie makes an excellent point.

If the U.S. is truly "addicted to war", then why is Castro still ruling Cuba after the Cuban Missile Crisis so many years ago? Why is there even a North Korea to threaten the U.S. with "nuclear annihilation" after the Korean War? Why did the U.S. play political games instead of just finishing off North Viet Nam, when it could have at any time? Why has there been no 'regime change' in Venezuela?

On and on, the points to refute the original poster's contention ...



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
lose your envy-based reasoning and just make the best of what you have in your country. Like any living creature on this planet, we will fight if we have to to maintain what we feel is ours to defend.
[edit on 7/6/2006 by centurion1211]


Hi


Firstly, let me say that I live in the best country in the world (England) and therefore I have no envy of the USA.

Are Americans addicted to war? Thats a good question.

I think that, on an individual basis you would find that the average American doesn't relish the idea of war at all!

BUT

The problem with the USA is that its huge. Being huge means that it contains nearly everything its people need, which can lead to an insular way of thinking. Face it, you never need to leave the USA for anything.

Theres the old chestnut that "75% of the US population doesn't have a passport" - from what I can find on the net its actually approximately 60 million out of a population of 295 Million (around 20%, or, to be blunt 235 million people)

235 million people is a whole lot of humans who have never set foot outside of their own country.

So why am I banging on about this? Well, thats 235 million people who don't know any better than what they see/hear and read in the US media. And why should they? They have no need for anything else.

The trap comes when the "government" reaches out and touches those 235 million people with a message. And in recent years they have been touched with paranoia, fear and mistrust.

And THATS where the problem - or in this case the image of bloodthirsty Americans - comes from.

You see, when the US Government told those 235 million people that a country in the Middle East had WMD's and was a direct threat to American interests they had the rather easy task of convincing a large chunk of them that they should be heading for the fallout shelters simply because - and i hate to say this - they didn't know any better. They didn't know any better because they had no need to, and its a damn site easier to convince a captive audience of something than it is to convince one who goes out into the world and sees for itself.

And suddenly the world sees on American forums things like "glassify Iraq/Iran/North Korea" or "We're fighting for our freedom" and it thinks WTF? Who are these people? What right have they to say that? Why the hell can't they stick to their corner of the world and have done with it?

And its those people who "fly the flag" for their country, because they are the ones who stick in memory.

Just like the American arch-sterotype of all English people sitting down for tea, speaking in really crappy Dick-Van Dyke (he wasn't English) cockney accents, having bad teeth and being football hooligans. Or of the French being "onion sellers" (sic).

So no.... Americans aren't addicted to war. The people who run their country might be. They may think "war is the only way to prop up the economy", they may think "god sent me to do it" or be doing it for the oil. They may even actually be acting in what they percieve to be everyones best interests, but one thing is sure, they DO have a whole lot of ignorance on their side.

Deny Ignorance





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join