Why America always Is - and aways will be - "at War"

till its dying days.... it will probably try to bring the whole world down with it (seems imminent)

but WHY?



interesting how the Marines anthem goes

www.foreignpolicy.com...

interesting article - definitely there's a parallel with America's addictions and its sheople's addictions.

how can such intelligent creatures be so dumb? flouride? pop culture? materialism, consumerism. sex drugs, rock...

Americans think of themselves as a peace-loving people, and we certainly don't regard our country as a "warrior nation" or "garrison state." Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that "A just war is in the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace"), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.

In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun.

America says one thing (war on terror) and does the opposite (terrorizes). America, and americans are addicted to power-tripping off this bipolar behavior, getting away with bloody murder and rewarded a peace prize to top it off.

what is the solution?

as long as Americans keep invading country after country and killing under the pretense of "serving" their country, this will never end until we're extinct..



"Open Your Eyes" by Snow Patrol

0:00-0:22 US Apache helicopters fire at Iraqi civilians (July 12, 2007)

0:23-0:53 Israel raids humanitarian aid flotilla to Gaza (May 31, 2010)

0:54-1:20 Israeli bulldozers destroy Palestinian homes/land

1:21-1:30 Palestinian kid throwing rocks at Israeli tanks

1:31-1:53 Israeli soldiers following Yitzhak Rabin's "break their bones" order (Feb. 1988)

1:54-2:19 Reenactment of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero (Mar. 24, 1980)

2:20-2:41 El Salvador death squad (National Police) gun down mourners attending Romero's funeral (Mar. 30, 1980)

2:42-3:02 Footage from the Santa Cruz Massacre (Nov. 1991)

3:03-3:05 George H.W. Bush takes pride in standing up for human rights while meeting with General Suharto

3:06-3:21 Kissinger and Ford toast General Suharto the night before Indonesia invades East Timor (Dec. 6, 1975)

3:22-3:26 Regan shaking hands with General Suharto

3:27-3:56 Footage of the 1973 coup that brought General Pinochet to power in Chili (Sep. 11, 1973)

3:57-4:06 Kissinger shaking hands with General Pinochet

4:07-4:37 US bombing of Cambodia (1969-1974)

4:38-4:58 Footage from the Iraqi occupation

4:59-5:04 Rumpsfeld greeting Saddam Hussein (Dec. 20 1983)

5:05-5:51 Footage from the Battle of Seattle (Nov. 30, 1999)

5:52-8:17 Reenactment of the handing of the Haymarket Martyrs (Nov. 11 1887)

speaker at the end is Howard Zinn, against the Vietnam War at a peace march on Boston Common on May 5, 1971

To stop it you will have to completely tear it all apart from the top down. Then rebuild it from the bottom up. There is no middle ground.

It is like cancer in the body. You cannot expect it to go away because you remove a small portion of the cancer from the body. At best that will only result in remission if you can remove the worst parts of the cancer.

For example you might think that the removal of those like this Thomas P.M. Barnett, U.S. Naval War College


The Pentagon's New Map
Released March 1, 2003 - Two weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq.

It Explains Why We're Going To War, And Why We Will Keep Going To War

So how do we distinguish between who is really making it in globalization's Core and who remains in the Gap? And how permanent is this dividing line?

In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so will American troops.

If we map out U.S military responses since the end of the cold war,(see below), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization's Core--

Most have demographics skewed very young, and most are labeled, "low income" or "low middle income" by the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual per capita).

If we draw a line around the majority of those military interventions, we have basically mapped the Non-integrating Gap.

If a country is either losing out to globalization or rejecting much of the content flows associated with its advance, there is a far greater chance that the U.S will end up sending forces at some point.

Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order to eradicate threats.

Now, that may seem like tautology-- in effect defining any place that has not attracted U.S. military intervention in the last decade or so as "functioning within globalization"( and vise versa).

Look at the other places U.S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking the ends of the of the earth as far as globalization is concerned.

IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U.S. national-security strategy would seem to be:

The Middle East is the perfect place to start.

Just thought I would show a few things to give the gist of it. Now you may think removing those such as that will alleviate the cancer but it will not. Those of that ilk are just cells. You have to remove the tumor in whole otherwise it just grows back and inevitably kills the body.

So yes I would agree with you that extinction is in the cards for the americans.

Originally posted by emberscott

If we map out U.S military responses since the end of the cold war,(see below), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization's Core--

If a country is either losing out to globalization or rejecting much of the content flows associated with its advance, there is a far greater chance that the U.S will end up sending forces at some point.

Conversely, if a country is largely functioning within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to restore order to eradicate threats.

The Middle East is the perfect place to start.

You have to remove the tumor in whole otherwise it just grows back and inevitably kills the body.
So yes I would agree with you that extinction is in the cards for the americans.

yea

Karma's a real bish!