Americans Addicted To War?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Simple. Because there are many of us that prefer to do more than only find fault with the U.S. What about the fact that the U.S. has given more in foreign aid to the rest of the world than the rest of world's developed nations combined? And what country is there first (maybe even faster than we are in coming to the rescue of our own citizens!!!) when there is some disaster around the world? Can you be OK with either of those facts?

Great post Centurion. These things are easily forgotten. Americans are good people. We like to help others, and we do indeed search for needs to fill. The problem is that the people and the government aren't behaving as one.

Originally posted by yanchek
Americans Addicted To War?

Well, they are always threatened by someone or they are in some sort of state of emergency. (War on this, War on that ...)
Or so they are being told.

So, yes! They have issues.
Reehab would be nice.

Oh yes, I neglected to mention colonial Russia/Soviet Union in a previous post. Now there's a track record to really be proud of while you bash the U.S. How many millions dead, enslaved or 'merely' impoverished? And we're just talking about in the last 80 or 90 years! Worse, there's people there that want to do it all over again.

Say, is that a picture of Rock Hudson from one of his movies in the center of your avatar?

[edit on 7/6/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by hogtie
neformore,

You have some good obersrvations

I try my best

but would you concede that there are those of us who see a legitimate threat in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea due to their past actions? During the Korean war, NATO and the whole UN was at war with North Korea, and frankly the conditions there have not changed, except the NK peoples are being forced into cannibalism due to the psycho in charge there.

A legitimate threat to what? To US soveriegnty? No.

OK. Iraq Invaded Kuwait. That was out of order. So the US and other countries went in and served a UN charter to restore the soveriegnty of the state again.

Same happened in the Korean War.

The UK went and got the Falklands back. I have no problem with anything like that

The problem comes when the US is going in to take out the people that it helped install in the first place, out of convinience to the US because those same people just don't fit the bill anymore because they had different ideas to the adminsitration.

Iraq and Iran have govts that are responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths, mostly against each other. One way or another they have (had for Iraq) been persuing means to extend their reaches.

Of these three, none had any love for the US. I'd go so far as saying they are/were quite militantly against the US.

When the Shah was in Iran, and buying US military hardware, the US had no problems.

When Saddam Hussein was in there, gassing civilian Iranians and kicking the backside of the Iranians who kicked the Shah out of power, the US had no problems with him.

Ok. Uncle Kim is a different case. But he's a guy with a beef about the Korean War, and instead of of facing down South Korea, he's always had the threat of US troops to deal with as well, potentially backed up with a nuclear doctorine to overcome "overwhelming odds". Is it any wonder the guy wants to even the playing field a little?

I think I have some good reasons for seeing some countries as a threat to the US. Were the Balkans a threat? Hell no. Double hell no. Did anyone complain about illegal war when Clinton deployed troops there (where they still are after all these years). Not in the mainstream media they didn't.

The Balkans thing WAS a human rights issue, and probably a legitimite one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning ANY human rights abuse. Saddam and the Mullahs in Iran did/do some awful things, and having them out of the picture would help alot of people, but the simple fact is the US initially BACKED people like Hussein and Pinochet and the Taleban who turned out to be some of the worst abusers the world has seen.

And then theres Al-Quaeda, who were initially the CIA back and funded Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and were fine while they were shooting down Soviet Helicopters with Stinger missiles but when they got the country back the US wanted influence in return and thus they became the enemy when they said "no"

What was the consensus on this forum then? Not being a member then, I don't know what the air was like on that. Sure this isn't a good example of how the US isn't addicted to war, but my quetion is, is the US only addicted to war when the rest of the world doesn't approve of the war we are in?

I wasn't on the forum then either, so I can't answer the initial question.

The second one is a doozy. I think the answer is no. The problem is - as I said in my initial post - that for every "x" amount of genuine US citizens who aren't warmongers theres a "glassify NK" type who has no idea of the horror, suffering and misery he or she refers to as both justification for, and end result of, the actions they condone.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

sure, War on Terror, War on Drugs,
but no War on Poverty, or War on Disease
No War on War

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by neformore
OK. Iraq Invaded Kuwait. That was out of order. So the US and other countries went in and served a UN charter to restore the soveriegnty of the state again.

I feel I should interject this statement made by the Ambassador to Iraq at the time before the invasion of Kuwait. April Glaspie

We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.

So, it looks like Iraq had a reason to believe the US would not be involved.

Originally posted by hogtie
en.wikipedia.org...

The concept of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s.

No war on poverty.

Originally posted by hogtie
Then what did you mean in this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"Althou my country (Slovenia) is in very high 9th place, I believe it's just a matter of time till we join the other "old" and "true" democracies. "

You have to be more specific. Do you want to talk about geography or political system?

A question was asked, "Americans Addicted to War?", easy question to debate imo but then we get HIGHLY sensitive Americans here taking this as "anti-Americanism". And then it's off to the races with, "Well, what about country X"? Not only is this fatigueing it's OFF TOPIC.

Just had to post here so that it would be in my favorites, the next time I'm asked "what is a He said/She said thread?" I can point to this thread.

Originally posted by neformore

A legitimate threat to what? To US soveriegnty? No.

Not US soveriegnty. US safety. Iran has stated that it has agents in place in the US just waiting to be activated. Allegations have been made that Timothy McVey had assitance from Iraqi agents, hence the rocket-sled to the death chamber. I think that the potential for damage from these nations is serious. If I preface the condoning of their actions based on something that was done before, then blame can go anywhere, everywhere, and forever in the past. The truth is that Iran and NK are unstable now, and have voiced an interest in harming the US. I believe they can.

Originally posted by yanchek

Originally posted by hogtie
Then what did you mean in this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"Althou my country (Slovenia) is in very high 9th place, I believe it's just a matter of time till we join the other "old" and "true" democracies. "

You have to be more specific. Do you want to talk about geography or political system?

I just took from that post that you were from Slovenia, that's all.

Originally posted by Unit541

Originally posted by hogtie
en.wikipedia.org...

The concept of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s.

No war on poverty.

It is definitely not over. The welfare system was renamed and is still alive and well. Off topic anyway. I'll shut up about this one.

Originally posted by intrepid
A question was asked, "Americans Addicted to War?", easy question to debate imo but then we get HIGHLY sensitive Americans here taking this as "anti-Americanism". And then it's off to the races with, "Well, what about country X"? Not only is this fatigueing it's OFF TOPIC.

Just had to post here so that it would be in my favorites, the next time I'm asked "what is a He said/She said thread?" I can point to this thread.

But how can it not be? The question is so open ended and polarizing. Some think it is and some think it isn't. I don't think there is going to be any convincing of the other party. Its like asking if the Pope is addicted to crack and then being suprised when Catholics defend him.

Originally posted by hogtie
Not US soveriegnty. US safety. Iran has stated that it has agents in place in the US just waiting to be activated. Allegations have been made that Timothy McVey had assitance from Iraqi agents, hence the rocket-sled to the death chamber. I think that the potential for damage from these nations is serious. If I preface the condoning of their actions based on something that was done before, then blame can go anywhere, everywhere, and forever in the past. The truth is that Iran and NK are unstable now, and have voiced an interest in harming the US. I believe they can.

The thing is, I'm 99.9% sure the US has agents in those countries, ready to be activated. So whats the difference?

And while the US is concerned about missile proliferation and weapons sales to "rogue states", lets not forget that the US supplied weapons all over the world fighting "communism" and other ideaologies

So if its a bullet from an AK47 or an M16 that blows your kids head off while they are playing in the street, your kid is still dead. And you aren't going to be enamoured to the person who supplied the gun, are you, regardless of their "noble" reasons.

Every country looks after its own safety. And every country has its own opinions on things. Alot of people - and please don't slate me for this because its an example and not a statement - think that GWB is a semi-intelligent chimp who is hell bent on blowing the world to pieces.

Or to put it another way;

The American thinks Uncle Kim is a nut-job who is about to lob a missile at his country.
The North Korean thinks GWB is a nut job who is about to lob a missile at her country.

Which one has the wrong opinion from their own unique point of view?

Neither.

[Edit] I must add that the US has expressed interest in harming Iran and NK, and regardless of the reasons, if you live in those countries and the US says you are part of the "Axis of Evil", you aren't really going to b every happy because one day something might just spoil your breakfast

[edit on 6-7-2006 by neformore]

Originally posted by hogtie


But how can it not be? The question is so open ended and polarizing. Some think it is and some think it isn't. I don't think there is going to be any convincing of the other party. Its like asking if the Pope is addicted to crack and then being suprised when Catholics defend him.

Then prove he's not with facts, don't say, "Well what about the Queen's sherry addiction?"

See the difference?

Originally posted by intrepid
A question was asked, "Americans Addicted to War?", easy question to debate imo but then we get HIGHLY sensitive Americans here taking this as "anti-Americanism". And then it's off to the races with, "Well, what about country X"? Not only is this fatigueing it's OFF TOPIC.

It's also fatigueing to click on ATS and find this incessant drumbeat of U.S. bashing. But I want to talk about what you just posted. To debate this question as you seem to suggest without bringing in other related subject matter, I'd have to answer with only a simple "No, the U.S. is not addicted to war." But that would violate the ATS rule against posting one line responses. Same would be true of the person that responded back to me with, "Yes it is". We'd all be sure to stay narrowly focused on the topic, but it would be a very boring debate. Last, the title of the thread was rather cleverly worded, since we all know the difficulty of trying to prove the negative - in this case that the U.S. is not addicted to war.

[edit on 7/6/2006 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by hogtie
I just took from that post that you were from Slovenia, that's all.

No problem. If you want to know more about Slovenia there is a nice OP/ED writen by Souljah here on ATS or ATSNN. If you want to talk politics (comparing US or Western democracy to the democracy in transitional countries (Ex communist/socialist)) open a thread on PTS and I'll be happy to oblige.

To intrepid.
Point taken. New Policy for Political Bickering on ATS in full effect.

Originally posted by intrepid

Then prove he's not with facts, don't say, "Well what about the Queen's sherry addiction?"

See the difference?

Then shouldn't the original post be posed "Americans are addicted to war because a) b) c), instead of an op/ed piece? I just see the posts as responding in kind.

To make my point the hard way, I've started a new thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by hogtie
Its like asking if the Pope is addicted to crack and then being suprised when Catholics defend him.

Then prove he's not with facts,

Actually, the person who would say 'the Pope is addicted to crack' is the one
that is supposed to do the proving. The other way would be a 'guilty until
proven innocent' way of doing things. And frankly, that's what the author of
this thread has done. He has given an anti-America OPINION (which he's
allowed to have) and not backed it up with facts that prove 'addiction'.

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.