It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Our Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years -- Anyone Got a Problem with That?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:22 AM

Our Government Is Planning to Stay at War for the Next 80 Years -- Anyone Got a Problem with That?


Without public debate and without congressional hearings, a segment of the Pentagon and fellow travelers have embraced a doctrine known as the Long War, which projects an "arc of instability" caused by insurgent groups from Europe to South Asia that will last between 50 and 80 years. According to one of its architects, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are just "small wars in the midst of a big one."
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 04:22 AM

Consider the audacity of such an idea. An 80-year undeclared war would entangle 20 future presidential terms stretching far into the future of voters not yet born. The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches 5,000, with the number of wounded a multiple many times greater. Including the American dead from 9/11, that's 8,000 dead so far in the first decade of the Long War. And if the American armed forces are stretched thin today, try to conceive of seven more decades of combat.

Three things that crossed my mind:

-If Iraq is just a small war (of $3 trillion) and taking into account the current huge deficit, how could the West and in particular the US ever fund such a long war?

-If Iraq is just a small war that has already taken the lives of approximately 5,000 coalition troops, how could we possibly sustain a war that would last 80 years? With two ''small'' wars only, the US is highly dependent on its allies while its military is already spread very thin. To me it seems conscription would be highly required for this to be possible.

-The fact that the US has established a significant number of permanent bases in Iraq and perhaps in Afghanistan as well could very well be part of the preparation for this war.

Taking a look at the map of Asia, it is obvious that American influence in the region is being expanded. Those countries of any significance that oppose Americanism, are dealt with (Iraq, Afghanistan and in the future perhaps Pakistan and Iran).

To me it seems that China is getting surrounded by pro-American (puppet) regimes. Does it make sense to assume that the strategy that is being realized is aimed at China?

related threads:

Iran - The Battlefield of The Sino-American Struggle for Power
China circled by chain of US anti-missile systems

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Mdv2]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:09 AM
well if thats the case then. they are really going to struggle.

New recruits numbers are just going to keep dropping and droppping.

soon they wont have the numbers to keep up a decent presence.

who wants to join a never ending war? mostly the desperatly poor in america.
who have nowhere else to turn.

Also I often see all the futuristic weapons that have been developed, and made. on tv by america. how come they dont actually use them?

the goverment spends probably billions developing new weapons, patenting, testing. and losts of them, end up locked away, not even put into production.
what a waste of a huge advantage.

Plus the armours that have been made, that could be strapped to every single soldier.

they have thousands of tanks too right? why arent these out on patrol with them. nobody wants to screw with a tank.

im probably going to get a load of "you hate america" stuff, but i dont.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 06:18 AM
I have to politely disagree with that statement.

Getting the troops will not be a problem for a creative individual...

Their quality on the other hand is another story...

As a long range campaign against foreign powers it makes sense. It is a necessary step against the Chinese government. For this opinion I will not apologize. Few here have the capacity nor the care to find out from its history just how powerful and deceptive they are...

As for the actual campaign and series of strategies. I do not believe the nations long term interest are in competent hands. I would rather go to a school and pick kids at random. Id have a better shot at competent leadership compared to the idiots in charge.

This one I would have to agree with national security. If you dont like it throw them out of office and make it a requirement legislation. Make no mistake the Chinese government would love nothing better then to find out what the real goal is.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:14 AM
Warfare that would last 80 years or more, or a "Long War," as some have called this War on Terror? It is no surprise to me whatsoever that this idea has been in works since after 9-11. Here is former Presidential candidate, John McCain, in 2008 hinting at the "Long War."

They have to get that war economy going and the TPTB are looking for any way to do such. Iran may be just what the politicians and their puppet masters have in mind? Iran is only a matter of time, and with the recent news of that high level Iranian nuclear scientist defecting with I am sure oodles of information that the US government wants to hear, allegations of Iranian funding and arming of the Taliban, meddling in Iraq and assisting the insurgency during US combat operations, and other "so called,' smoking guns to validate an American war with Iran. It is almost the zero hour in that regard, and the cat is definitely out of the bag.

At one time when I was still wearing the blinders and in the dark if you will, I used to think the US was your regular run-of-the-mill economies. Making widgets and what not for sale and distribution, both here and abroad. However, I have come to the conclusion that the American economy after World War II has become nothing more than a constant war economy. The video below sums it up quite well, although it was made during George W. Bush's Presidency; there is really no difference between the current administration and the last.

War has got to be going on at all times, and if it is not, the spooks are sent in to destabilize the region to bring about conflict. Therefore, arms are sold to US supporters, or direct US involvement is established. As the Russian saying goes, "There is good fishing in troubled waters." Maybe that is the mindset behind this prolonged war? These revelations should be no surprise to anyone? America is on the verge of decline, and I think those in power know that.

As a result of that simple truth, they are making inroads to secure whatever they can at present, to counter the growing influence of China, and the re-emergence of Russia. There appears to be an encirclement strategy in place around the two large countries. One needs to look no further than the US involvement with Georgia and other activities in the Caucus, establishing good relations with countries of Eastern Europe and former Soviet satellites, that huge Army base established in Kosovo, then, US forces in Afghanistan and other nations in Central Europe to a lesser degree. The previous list shows that apparently a military encirclement strategy is in place against Russian influence.

Then with China, one needs to look no further than bases all over the Pacific with some in Japan, South Korea, military presence in the Philippines to assist in their war on terror with insurgents, Abu Sayaf, and US presence to China's west with a presence in Central Asia. So, a US encirclement of the two powers is in affect at the moment, and the evidence speaks for itself. Now, for the question in the your title, "Do I have a problem with that?" Does it really matter what anyone thinks anymore? Apparently, with the recent activities by our legislature and President, they know what is good for us and our input means nothing. That seems to be the fact of the matter at hand.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Jakes51]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by Mdv2

It could be China or it could be Russia.

Eventually a boiling point is going to be reached. We as a species can't make it past a century without a global conflict.

The planners at the DOD and the National Command Authority know this. We are planning ahead for World War III.

I give it about 10 to 19 years before III kicks off. When it does we should be in a position to quickly end it.

As for personnel, there are these things called Machines.

The MAARS, Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System

The Big Dog, robotic pack mule.

The Crusher, autonomous ground vehicle

The MQ-8 Fire Scout

The MQ-9 Reaper

The X-47 Pegasus

and my favorite terminator impersonator, Petman!

Petman when completed with arms and a head by the end of the year, will be able to wear uniforms and gear. The initial use of them is as "crash dummies" for chemical and radiological testing. Eventually they will be armed and armored.

Completed petman concept:

Keep in mind these are just the declassified systems. Anything behind closed doors is years beyond these.

Its expected that 1/3 of the US armed forces will be robots in 10-15 years.

As for money and finance. That system is going to collapse and we'll just make a new one. Yay for fiat digital currency.

Welcome to the Future!

[edit on 3/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:45 AM
I have a huge problem with this and it wont be for the next 80 years, it ll be for alot longer then that. How does one win a war on terror? Thats the whole point of this war. Use the American millitary to bring in the New World Order and destroy America in the process.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:02 AM
This should not be a suprise to anyone who is familiar with history. The US has never not been in conflict with another country/tribe since it's inception. The US economy as TPTB see it need war. Peace has never been an option.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:10 AM
It's the "eternal war" Nick Rockefeller told Aaron Russo about.

Seems to be going to plan...

top topics


log in