Why is the U.S. at war?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, at least Afghanistan had something to do with the 9/11 attacks - the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time, provided funding and a base of operations for al-Qaeda, which was at the time a pretty small-time operation. It's politically and economically difficult to go after the country where most of the attackers came from, as well as the source of the particular brand of Islamic fundamentalism practiced by al-Qaeda (Saudi Arabia), so one does what one can to discourage further such attempts.

The Iraq thing seems to have been based on Bush II going for a "more-Texan-than-thou" vibe - they messed with his daddy, and he couldn't let them thar low-down varmints git away with it! Other than the marsh Arabs and Kurds, the people of Iraq would seem to have actually been better off under Saddam's bootheel - at least he kept the various sectarian conflicts from erupting into violence...

The Korean and Vietnam conflicts were based on the silly (in hindsight) "domino theory" - the idea that if one of those countries fell to Communism, the ideology would begin absorbing all neighboring nations like some kind of socioeconomic virus. Had we known at the time how close to collapse the USSR was throughout its brief history, perhaps the theory would never have gained traction.

Vietnam was also bolstered by the fact that it was a former French colony; in fact, Ho Chi Minh started off rebelling against the French occupiers. Reportedly, Ho had turned to the US for backing first, thinking that as a former colony which had thrown off its oppressors we might be sympathetic, but was denied because then-President Eisenhower still thought of France as a powerful ally. He then turned to the only other option at the time - the Soviets.

The Cold War was fostered by the same unreasoning fear of Communism (although in the politicians' defense, to borrow a phrase from Hobbes the tiger, "It's hard to coexist peacefully with things that want to kill you"). This culminated in the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

The interventions in the Balkans were on more humanitarian grounds, as various ethnic groups sought to carry on conflicts that had never been resolved under Soviet rule, merely hidden from sight. Those interventions, carried on under Clinton, were in fact highly successful from the standpoint of the US - the conflicts were ended, peace came to central Europe for the first time in some four thousand years, and not a single American soldier died. (Sorry about all the partisans on both sides of the conflict who were killed, and our bad about the Chinese embassy incident, but at least our guys came through okay...)

It's far from clear that the USSR was "close to collapse" in the 1960s. I think the evidence is otherwise. It was only when appropriate pressure was applied in the 1980s - by illustrating to them the superiority of capitalism over communism, while performing a peaceful military buildup that they could not match - that they collapsed.


I'm not sure the Cold War counts as a "war" by the original poster's standards. Excluding separately mentioned conflicts like Viet Nam and Korea, few people died on either side in the Cold War.


The balkans is indeed an excellent example of why the U.S. tends to get involved in overseas wars. Lots of people die miserably, but we're able to arrange that they're not our people.

Come on... a peaceful military buildup... isn't that the same as a non-sexual erection?

This analogy is apt in many many many ways!

There's a difference between a bomb that you drop on someone and a bomb you never use. I'm willing to consider other terms to distinguish the latter from the former, if you want to offer them.

Unfortunatly, some people actualy could be right about 9/11 being an inside job. It's quite possible.

.....................

To protect our freedom of course.

kidding

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bb9Ah2x_F4[/youtube]

straight from the horse's mouth

edit: never mind the video title btw, I know that will set some of you off. It's just Helen Thomas's question to Obama about why we're still in Afghanistan.

It looks like OP was talking about wars like Vietnam and Iraq. We went into Vietnam to oppose the expansion the Soviet Union's sphere of influence and protect our own. Iraq was originally really about oil and the profit to be made; now we're kind of stuck because it could reduce stability in the Middle of East if we pull out improperly (but Obama definitely needs to get us out of there).

Empires more or less need war. Empires are societal entities that suck in wealth—with the greatest concentration being found in an empire's elite ruling class. We're not really so different from Rome, where the legions conquered Oriental provinces and brought its wealth to the senators and other powerful figures in Roman society; even the commoners got their bread and circuses. We have our warriors, yes, but the cunning general/statesman has been replaced by the business executive. Our slaves have been outsourced to the developing countries.

I think it's because we have a duty to protect other countries that want to save their freedom, and contain countries that want to oppress other countries.

We didn't want to Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung, the Taliban, Saddam, or whoever else to perpetuate their campaigns of oppression.

More like a hundred or a thousand dollar bill.

ruveyn

heh! We would make a nice new world order government, don't you think? The media is actualy doing a fine job helping segregation, in my oppinion.

The point I think they are wanting us to believe in...
"Everybody under one government. Where is the devide with one country and only one country? Now everyone can truely be citizens under one land. Think equalty! Isn't it better?"

It sounds like you're taking a basic premise that's largely correct - not only the Gulf War, but also the Mexican American war, were largely about empire building - and trying to distort it to fit a political agenda.

The reason we're in our current biggest war - Afghanistan - is not because of business, but because of politicians, just as for Rome. Most businesses would prefer we end that money sink and count on capitalism and the free market to generate wealth; it's politicians like Obama who keep escalating the conflict there.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_TtYQEDTo&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

So they're reviewing plans to attack Pakistan in the case that they're implicated in another attack. We're going to be at war for the rest of our lives.

Alan Grayson is a weird guy. He can be so right on some times and then I can't stand him the next.

this one of the times he's right on tho

Noted
[img][650:308]http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-thousand-1000-dollar-bill.jpg[/img]