Why Won't the US Give Peace a Chance?

An article in Druthdig by Ted Rail raises a question that should be asked far more frequently in my opinion.

Just why does the US fear peace?

An explanation to that question was provided by Startfor - known as the private CIA - in a 2007 essay:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/united-states-hate-peace/

The Stratfor answer in fact harkens back to the so called Wolfowitz Doctrine that proclaimed the principal objective as follows:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

The Truthdig article follows:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/united-states-hate-peace/

 

Our economy would crash. The American economy REQUIRES war in order to function.

 

I agree completely.

 

If people would stop hijacking planes and flying them into our buildings, maybe we wouldn't be so aggressive.

 

Maybe if we stopped overthrowing their elected leaders, and propping up dictators at the expense of the people they rule, they might stop flying planes into buildings. ( and its been a real long time since that happened. How long can we beat 9/11 to death? )

 

Sadden Hussein was a popularly elected leader?

 

And if we would stop meddling in the affairs of other nations, treading on what they call holy land, where we are not welcomed, perhaps they would leave us alone? In this cause effect universe?

So, if I come into your house and bust you in the nose, and you whip my old arse, and I then blame you....well, under your way of thinking, I would be in the right here, justified and you would be the sorry POS? For that is exactly what your position is, in reality. You sir are irrational And wrong. And for some reason cannot understand what a cause effect universe looks like and operates like. Idiocy.

 

He was able to keep his nation under some kind of order and control. Which in case if you had not paid attention is how the middle east operates. No, they are not like europe or the US. Different cultures, and a violent religious division. Not understanding the middle east creates stupid actions on our part. And we make it even worse than it already was. From people who are thinking like you.

 

We need to quite trying to police the world. It costs us too much money and too many lives.
And all we cause is destruction. We have had destructive foreign policy for decades and we never learn. Or we just dont care about that part..

 

Russian propaganda.

 

Incorrect. We do more good than bad, but you wouldn't know it listening to a bunch of propagandists and pathological America-haters online.

 

I think we will have to eventually

But contrary to popular belief it wont be better for the world or America

 

At what cost? We are the most powerful country on the planet with one of the most corrupt govts. We have a CIA that ignores other countries own wishes as if we are the only sovereign country on the planet. We overthrow elected leaders..
Everyone always thinks they are doing whats best, despite mass deaths and overall cost. How often do they end up being correct?
I mean, come on... we arm people just to end up fighting them down the road. We "accidently" arm our own enemies..
I cant trust the fed gov enough to think they will do good on the world stage. Especially when history shows otherwise.

 

There is not that much to debate, I think. The US needs to retain ABSOLUTE power. For that you need to be a flawless leader with the best support (whatever anyone here thinks of me but anti-Americanism is a fact), the best economy (debt, local failure to get the markets of EU and China with oil and gas), the best army (which is the best weaponry and the best results on the battlefields). The US is forced to force everyone to believe that they are great (again or still), the more the US is trying to set a quarrel among the uniting rivals the worse it will be when the rivals eventually find the way to unite. With such a policy the US is driving itself into a corner, because it can no longer claim an absolute leadership, but certainly has plenty of time and room to rebuild itself strategically while giving up globally bargaining for every bit given away to the rivals. I don't say that collapsing like the USSR is a decent thing. Of course not. It was insane and unfair and I don't wish to anyone the fate we had to have in the 90s in former USSR.
Moreover the US could capitalize of selling its status gradually. Noone has the aircarriers. Without the US it is just impossible to settle any crisis in the world. So being engaged into a play with the rivals US can identify the strengths and weaknesses of its rivals much faster and less dangerous. On this way the US are risking everything and every move can become the last for majority of the human beings.

 

Washington cant even run OUR country correctly and people honestly think they should run over everyone else?

 

cool, why are we locked in a forever war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks

 

No. he was a dictator that we helped prop up his power.


He was our "friend" until we decided he wasnt.

 

If there had not been something like the war against Saddam in recent history ... and I'm just talking about 2003 only and not the previous one in 1990/1991 which is an own story of ist own.

What was the name of this war and which headline was it in Afghanistan? Oh yes ... "War against Terror". Ridiculous ...

 

Unlike my conservative brethren who drink too much of our governments propaganda via our media. I think and know differently.

There is an absolute ton of data supporting the OPs question or assertion and every single prolonged engagement we have been spent 100s of billions in each one and trillions of my money supports it.

The United States current foreign policy strategically, economicaly and security wise are all tied together. Our war for resources strategem. The renewal of the ancient agreement Lancaster House is part of our validation of it to wrangle our closest EU allies into our plans as well. The other validation transparently lacking was terrorism. 9/11 with those attacks wrote the corrupt state dept and Pentagon a blank check to just run amok in the ME for over 15 years now.

The keystone is Afghanistan. With its trillions of dollars in untapped virgin mineral resource deposits. We want those contracts. So because the Taliban are idiots and allowed a few hundred Islamists too have training facilities and because they are proponents of extreme sharia law doing inhumane things like a few public executions? That's all we needed. We invaded. Toppled the Taliban regime and did not set up a Democracy but rather a Dictatorship with some fancy democratic icing.

We helped them write and approved their current constitution. It provides unlimited power to the President. Who has complete control of the hiring and firing of any elected official. Guess what that includes? The award of those mining and extraction contracts. But the Taliban is fighting it and so now we are pressuring them via war to compromise with the government. IE our government. Once Afghanistan is stabilized? The resource extraction starts.

It's not complicated any of it. There are just alot of dots to connect. All official. All on the record and all provable.

 

It should have been called the "War on Radical Islam", but our left forces us to be politically correct and we can't offend anyone.

Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. The WW II equivalent would have been "The War on Blitzkrieg".

 

Oh, I had no doubt that this was the case, I was just trying to hammer home how absurd it is to believe the official narrative concerning the war in afghanistan. They aren't even -trying- to keep their true motives concealed anymore, we all know that the war is absurd, and we're just not talking about it.

 

Hussein had to go. He financed terror against Israel, gassed his own people, and every intelligence agency in the world concluded he had WMD's.

 

Yes, they're animals. Bush (and I) overestimated their abilities.

 

Saddam was no radical Islamist ... not at all. He was from Bath Party and Religion was for him secondary important! 2003 was simply a war of paybackj to finish an un-completed Job and to gain control in this strategic important Region and area with the oil ... nothing else!

The term terrorist is now completely irrelevant and unimportant ... because says nothing!
Unfortunately, it has become a fashion to call its enemies terrorists and discredit them ... the best example for this behavior is Syria!
For Assad Regime, Rusians and Iranians is everyone who fights against Assad a Terrorist ... everyone! ... For the others too? No!
For Turkey are the YPG Kurds in northern Syria all terrorists and this is why they fight them. Strange, because neither the USA as their ally , nor the Assad Regime and their allies Russia and Ian rate them this way, but to be more or less allies in fight against Terror!
And for the USA, Israel and some others are the Assad supporting Hezbollah all terrorists, but also for Assad, Russia and Iran and some others? No!

Only at IS they are are all Rating them as terrorists ... but not really fighting in same priority in reality!

You see ... the term Terror and Terrorist is worthless now!

 

TR sir you have been sticking to this narrative since ugh forever. Saddams mistake was invading Kuwait. Was it any of our business? Nope but we made it our business and formed a long term foreign policy plan involving our destabilization of the entire region.

I hate when people pull the Kool aid straw out of their mouth long enough to make the claim about every major intelligence entity in the world concluded Saddam had MWDs. I remember when we told him to destroy them. He did. If there had even been a spoonful of chemical weapons in Iraq after we destroyed Saddam why couldn't we find any. Cuz he destroyed them

Why were the intelligence agencies so sure Saddam had them? Well for one they all knew we gave Saddam massive amounts of chemical weapon materials in the 80s to use against Iran via Rumsfeld and crew. That's undeniable. Second reason is all those major Intel agencies countries are in our pocket.

But the American people would not have been in support of an invasion nor could congress have voted for the war without those MWDs Soooo the State Dept trots out Colin Powell a man of indisputable integrity with a vial of piss to convince Congress.

The opinion I quoted here is so blind in the face of facts it's nauseating.

My only beef with what I know are the real reasons we have invaded the ME is that so far? I am not seeing any profits. None. Just alot of red in my taxes checkbook.

I still have hope for some payback from Afghanistan but unless the Taliban actually bargains for a share of the pie.. Which is our goal.. I won't see that money either!