NosferatuGuts wrote...
Sgt.broski wrote...
Now I totally disagree with that statement about the U.S not doing that much for other countries being soldiers are being used to deploy food and support to people in need throughout Africa, Afghanistan, and etc. Hell, American soldiers is saving lives in other countries they need to help save this economy from destruction.
SO you mean to tell me you invaded Irak to feed people? Ok I can see why the US had to go in on afghanistan but what a collosal cluster fuck have they made of it? Your wars make people suffer more then actually help because the helping is never the motive so it's not priority. Where was this helping military when millions of people got slaughtered in Rwanda?
The US has always had a way of picking fights that would benefit them and then try to look look the saviour of the world. This has been the case since WW1 there is no war wich the US fought for any other reason then that it benefit them greatly.
I suppose you think that you helpen the people in Vietnam aswell.
Actually, historically the U.S Public was against war before being dragged in it.
WWI: Woodrow Wilson brings the American People into the war as "the war to end all wars." Between this and the Federal Reserve, it's without question to any U.S Historian that Wilson was the worst president in U.S History.
WWII: Roosevelt pulls a Wilson, first in giving Lend-lease aid to Britain. As well as agitating Japan, this agitation would lead to the Pearl Harbor attacks which
then brought America into the war. Americans preached neutrality stronger here, then they did even a decade prior(WWI)
Vietnam: Nixon was the most corrupt U.S. President in America's history, forget Watergate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.
Iraq(Desert Storm and Part II from 2001-2012): This is actually a bipartisan deal(despite Democrats not wanting to owe up to that part). Mostly in response to the Rhwanda tragedy, which we didn't "intervene"(because we were too busy bombing Yugoslavia). Blue Dog "Democrats" didn't want to "risk" a Saddam with "chemical" weapons, with the pro-hawkish Bush and the Neo Cons in power it gave them the cover to go ahead with it.
The truth is, after initial resistance(up to Vietnam) and the sometimes climatic showdown that comes when the people express their views to the government came a development which the Founders feared: Americans became apathetic to war.
More accurately, Americans are apathetic to political existence altogether. I mean, if it's only going to result in bloodshed from time to time why bother? Americans valued peace over security, but only a politically aware populace can truly have both peace and security. Through applied knowledge and elected representatives who are qualified to heed 99% of America's wishes, not just 1%.
This is a basic detail of America's war history, the military-industrial-complex and its lobbyists have traditionally sabotaged a neutral nation. Because of the existence of lobbyists, the "international responsibility", etc. Americans simply decided to exercise their neutrality from politics itself, which was the wrong response.
We should have ever more resolutely stated our neutrality to the bitter end, and we should have fought for our rights to live, to work and to hold a strong national defense. To a small extent, we succeeded in removing the draft but the Selective Service(which all college students and HS Graduates are
required to enlist in) exists for the sole purpose of the reenactment of the draft.