posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:21 PM
The Question asked "Are Americans addicted to War" is loaded.
I find it interesting how the frame of the debate is centered around the United States being the problem, and now it is up to responders to prove that
Americans are somehow not "addicted" to war.
I think it is fair criticism of American policy to not support the US liberation of Iraq. The United States is getting exactly what we deserve from
European countries, particularly France, after protecting them for decades from the USSR. The United States enabled the widespread attitude of
entitlement that defines the European lifestyle today by shielding Europe from all potential dangers in the world for 4 decades in the 20th century.
Another interesting trend is the lack of genuine friendship from the same people the US has treated as genuine friends in the past. It is noteworthy
how many supposed 'allies' are opposed to assisting the United States in Afgahnistan. They attacked us on 9/11, we fight back, and because of it now
America is 'addicted to war' because we didn't bend over for the people crashing airplanes into our symbols of American economic power. Canada for
example was barely able to pass a vote to support troops in Afgahnistan. Thanks neighbor, that overwhelming show of support is truly touching.
The question that should be asked is whether American liberals have been right from the beginning. I recall the American liberal montra during the 80s
was the US needed to stop playing the World's Police Man. I agreed with them then and agree with them now, I think we should stop tomorrow
withdrawling all of our military forces out Europe.
I think the next step is to tell the world we will no longer carry their water. For starters, maybe we should review our funding proceedures regarding
the UN, obviously if the world thinks we are the biggest threat, then they can start paying their fair share for peace. We should re-evaluate our
commitment to humanitarian aid around the world, after all, the rest of the world cares so much about the poor and distrot, they will surely take up
some of the 80% of all humanitarian aid worldwide the US donates.
And perhaps the US should re-evaluate our strategic committments for peace, because apparently they don't need us in South Korea anymore, or Israel,
or Japan, or Saudi Arabia, and we shouldn't uphold our committments to Taiwan either, after all, the US isn't a leverage of peace for those nations,
we are the prelude to war according to the original question.
I'm sure Saudi Arabia's oil is quite safe without the US, because the French and Germans will no doubt protect them from the Iraq's and Irans of
the future. I'm sure the North Koreans would open their borders if the US just left South Korea, and Taiwan would be just fine without US assistance,
and peace would break out in the Middle East if it wasn't for the evil US support of Israel, a country created by the wisdom only available in
Europe. That is the implication of the original question is it not? Without the US, the world would hold hands and sing kum-bi-ya?
Because everyone knows that Europe will do the right thing, make the tough decision to help others when needed, and their entitlement is also
enlightenment, so they will always choose the best coarse of action to insure peace and prosperity in the world, after all, the 20th century is the
historical example of peace the European way... or was it the 19th century? 18th? hmm...
The loaded question in this thread requires some serious thought, because as a citizen of the country addicted to war, I'm not sure I am qualified to
give a response that would make sense to someone who believes the US is the source of war, violence, and evil in the world. Perhaps once I review a
manual regarding "Speaking to the Jealous, Guilty Mind" will I find qualification necessary to debate you properly.
If you feel you have been insulted by any of this sarcaism, then I think my point has been made effectively.