It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Insanity of Militarism --- What have we become?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I think about the state of war and it's negative repercussions all the time, and after just reading another members thread on solving world hunger I decided to post my view.

I think a few people need to address our political leaders DIRECTLY---Obama, his administration, congress and the like--- and ask them how they find it moral or even politically correct to spend hundreds of billions a year on our military, on invading country after country in "defense" of the US even though everyone knows it's really for the oil and other corporate interest; on destroying cities and murdering innocent men, women, and children alike. ALL this pain and suffering forced on human beings that happen to live in different parts of the world, because there's a handful of terrorist they need to find? This doesn't seem to weigh out.

Obama needs to be asked, does he think it is moral to use terrorism as a pretext for invading any country he likes; and then even when it becomes unconstitutional continues these wars? The most recent example being Libya. I just read an article with an enclosed letter that had been signed by 100 foreign medics demanding that somebody put an end to the "genocide" being committed there by US and NATO forces. It's turning into a complete war-zone, with yet more innocent civilians being slaughtered in the crossfire; and our president thinks he has the RIGHT to continue with this unconstitutional, and INCREDIBLY immoral invasion. It disgust me.

I'm trying to understand, how we manage to spend trillions on war, and now with the house authorizing 700 billion dollar defense budgets for this and the next fiscal year; much of which is spent on perpetuating immoral and unconstitutional wars. Ask Obama to his face, what he thinks is more important: spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to murder countless, and send their countries into turmoil in the process; or cut ALL of that and spend it on feeding those who are so poor they are dying of starvation. In my eyes this is one of the most disturbing aspects of our country and it's foreign affairs; and is a tell-tale sign that not only did Obama break his promise, he's done the complete opposite and continued in Bush's legacy to enact TERROR on anyone or anybody remotely related to a few that pose a threat. And ontop of that, signing to extend the Patriot Act, which now apparently has a secret interpretation that nobody knows except the highest in office? How utterly terrible does that sound? It care barely get any worse...

The only option seems to be impeach Obama; and lock up all the rest of these corrupt bastards involved with spreading [our] militaristic regime across the world, wrecking economies---including our very own---and MURDERING innocent human beings under the pretext that there might be terrorist or a nuclear program (or OIL) in that particular country. So what will we do?? One thing I know, I'll be voting for Ron Paul 2012.
edit on 1-6-2011 by Raelsatu because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing. I had some similar thoughts today about the whole war thing. I can't see how so many Americans are for war, when in reality it makes very little sense. In my mind, I imagine a clueless couple, watching the boob-tube, munching down on chips and drinking beer and looking over at me to say, "USA, USA, USA," and then go back to watching the tube (that's in my mind, remember). There is this crazy sense of Patriotism that is totally misplaced and - as you say - fallen victim to militarism.

So after finding no logic in the whole war logic I had this thought:
It should be illegal to borrow and or finance any money for war.

I know I should suggest that we all go for no war, but that would never happen. However, all this debt around the world and the US spending a ridiculous amounts of money on wars (which will never be repaid) and banksters getting filthy rich financing the wars (as the Rothschilds did many years ago and yet to this day), I think it is a logical idea. If you can't afford to bomb the crap out of somebody or foot the bill for sending armies around the world, then you shouldn't be doing it. Cut the ties.


edit on 1-6-2011 by alyoshablue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
S and F

I agree with everything you said, about how US presidents and other world leaders use the pretext of terrorism to invade other nations for their own interests. It is definitely wrong but we can't seem to do anything about it. If anything, I have to disagree that electing Ron Paul will fix this whole "US World Police/Terrorist" agenda. Replacing Obama with Ron Paul, even if he has sincere intentions for the US, simply won't fix the problem. This system of using terrorism as a scapegoat for exploiting other nations has been in place for a long time. I believe that the problem is the institution itself.

Well, if Ron Paul can make a dent against this current system, well, more power to him.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Your politicaly incorrect.

To insinuate that we are nothing more then "peacekeepers" in a changing world for monetary value would cheapen our position... to change the world for the better.

Sounds like potencial terrorism to me and many others.

You calling B.S?

Your on the list .

Hmmmm... I'm gonna keep my eye on you, you pretend Patriot.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
That was Sarcasm Am I on the list? Was a JOKE...

www.merriam-webster.com...
See?

Rats...Now I'm on a list.

It's ATS's fault.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I agree with a lot of your disgust and sadness with the lives and money wasted on fruitless wars. I would prefer for the US to take a more isolationist approach to the world and not try to be the police of the Globe (but I do realize why they were put into that mind-set after WWII).

War should be looked at as a last resort, and only used when it becomes apparent that their are no other options (such as you are being attacked directly as a country), or you are stopping someone from attacking innocents.

Where it gets a bit complicated is that I do think, after watching Obama, that others will sense weakness in your country and try and take advantage, with methods of war or otherwise, if they see you as being weak. Then, you end up with China or Russian morality causing more harm than a war would have in the short term.

We live in an ugly world when you look at the international situation.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Ultraman2011,

Very nice points that you brought up. Question, do you think if Russia and/or China was the dominant world power (instead of the US), would it be better for the international community? Or no? Thanks.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by btyoung21
Ultraman2011,

Very nice points that you brought up. Question, do you think if Russia and/or China was the dominant world power (instead of the US), would it be better for the international community? Or no? Thanks.


Based on their history, culture and ethics, most definitely worse. Russia and China have no history of individual liberty, property rights, or the independence and freedom of a person. It would be an ugly world with either of them having an influence. For all the bashing of the US in the world, they do bring (or try to) democracy, free elections, human rights, and some sort of freedom of the markets when they peddle their influence.

When they do fight wars, they usually have a pretense at least of where the moral compass is. China and Russia (Tibet/Eastern Europe) do not. And, you have to look at the end result of the society that exist after the war or influence that was exerted. Most countries touched by the US are much better off than those touched by China or Russia.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Thanks ultraman2011 for your answer. Good points. Well yeah, think about how the Soviet former SSR countries ended up. Still kind of effed up after almost half a century.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or whoever else holds the throne. It's the SYSTEM.

The SYSTEM is rotten.

It is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the SYSTEM on the Internent. It is not, however, illegal to advocate complete dismantling of the SYSTEM (i.e., voting the constitution out of existence, etc. ) and then creating a NEW SYSTEM.

Until that happens it doesnt matter who the President is because it is impossible for any human being to get to that position without bowing to the demands of the SYSTEM.

The entire SYSTEM is corrupt because it is predicated on greed and various false beliefs and destructive ways of thinking imposed upon people in order to extract wealth from them, or else to lord it over them in sick games!!

The SYSTEM is built to funnel resources UPWARDS to the most greedy, the most rapacious, the most conniving, the most sociopathic, the people who are willing to get their hands the dirtiest. It doesn't have to be but it IS now!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I'm surprised more people don't understand the situation and are surprised we have come to this place. America had become strong by generally ignoring the world, aside from the really bad stuff, and concentrating on business. When war came, we really went at it and decided to utterly destroy the other guys.

These days we have a consumption economy with a trade deficit. Economic disruptions, oil disruptions, any move to remove or weaken the dollar as the reserve currency, and many others are casus belli to these guys because every leader and congress person has refused to take the sour pill and fix it for long term gain.

Kicking the can and making it harder and harder to turn back. This is the way it is and America is generally immune to attack and war since we've almost never experienced it here, aside from us fighting ourselves and a few smallish attacks.

Our purchasing power is now our worth, and that's not saying much with the state of credit these days. Expect more, much more to come. Also expect no one to do %^& about it.

Peace
KJ



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partygirl
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Obama or Bush or whoever else holds the throne. It's the SYSTEM.

The SYSTEM is rotten.

It is illegal to advocate violent overthrow of the SYSTEM on the Internent. It is not, however, illegal to advocate complete dismantling of the SYSTEM (i.e., voting the constitution out of existence, etc. ) and then creating a NEW SYSTEM.

Until that happens it doesnt matter who the President is because it is impossible for any human being to get to that position without bowing to the demands of the SYSTEM.

The entire SYSTEM is corrupt because it is predicated on greed and various false beliefs and destructive ways of thinking imposed upon people in order to extract wealth from them, or else to lord it over them in sick games!!


Do you not thing the "system" exist everywhere? Their was a book written awhile back called "confessions of an economic hitman" that detailed the evil deeds of international corporations abroad. I don't doubt it for a bit. But, I also realized that the Chinese, Russians, and German's are all playing the same game. If the US wasn't doing it, someone else would--they get the attention because, frankly, they are damn good at it.

When it comes to war (as per the thread) the US can exert influence due to their strength . Others would step in, but realize they would be squashed like a bug...so they don't. The system is corrupt, but its a world wide problem that lies in the heart of mankind.

The SYSTEM is built to funnel resources UPWARDS to the most greedy, the most rapacious, the most conniving, the most sociopathic, the people who are willing to get their hands the dirtiest. It doesn't have to be but it IS now!




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Partygirl: You basically expounded on what I said earlier. Its not about whos on the throne. Its about the kingdom that owns the throne.

On a side note, I read somewhere that wide-scale conflicts are no longer feasible in today's world, but rather intense and quick small-scale conflicts. They say that WW1s and 2s would no longer be "profitable" for participating nations. PLEASE forward your thoughts on this.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by niceguybob
Your politicaly incorrect.

Your on the list .

Hmmmm... I'm gonna keep my eye on you, you pretend Patriot.


You're on the bad grammar list.

I'm going to keep my eye on you (and your grammar)

Have a good one



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
[yvid]iw0MripVxss
[/yvid]

This is 98% not about militarism, but the 2% that is pretty much sums it up.
edit on 1-6-2011 by greenWeenie because: no reason given



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join