Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[konradv]

Will the NWO/MIC ever run out of Boogeymen to scare the People with?

The problem, whether globally or nationally, is with government that exists to sustain itself. And the more it can increase its size, scope, expense, power, authority, etc., the more those in government can use it for self serving purposes to increase their own personal power, influence, authority, and personal wealth.

The certain effect is they will ever keep pushing the envelope a little more and then a little more. And each time the push goes unchallenged, the people give up a little more of their power and freedoms and government is encouraged to continue to seize it.

The perpetual war machine is just one symptom of all that, but an important one. It is just one more method used to take power from the people until government succeeds in having it all thus securing the future and fortunes of those who manage to be at the top when that happens.

Welcome to the New World Order. Sounds fun huh?

What's new about it? Perpetual war has been the human condition since Cro-Magnons drove Neanderthals to extinction.

 

[georgephillip]

Perhaps those citizens, natural and otherwise, who profit most from wars should face a 90% tax rate on all war related profits AFTER the first innocent civilian dies?

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

President Wilson, a democrat, turned the US into a imperialist country in the name of Jesus H Christ.

Go fig

.

Chomsky points out the current war-whore in chief is the fourth US President to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

This is how he sums up Wilson's peaceful intent:

"Woodrow Wilson is the most honored of the presidential laureates and arguably the worst for Latin America.

"Wilson's invasion of Haiti in 1915 killed thousands, restored virtual slavery and left much of the country in ruins.

"Demonstrating his love of democracy, Wilson ordered his Marines to disband the Haitian parliament at gunpoint for failing to pass 'progressive' legislation that allowed U.S. corporations to buy up the country. The problem was remedied when Haitians adopted a U.S.-written constitution, under Marine guns. The achievement would be 'beneficial to Haiti,' the State Department assured its wards.

"Wilson also invaded the Dominican Republic to ensure its welfare. Both countries were left under the rule of vicious national guards. Decades of torture, violence and misery there come down to us as a legacy of 'Wilsonian idealism,' a leading principle of U.S. foreign policy."

 

[Contumacious]

Perhaps those citizens, natural and otherwise, who profit most from wars should face a 90% tax rate on all war related profits AFTER the first innocent civilian dies?

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

President Wilson, a democrat, turned the US into a imperialist country in the name of Jesus H Christ.

Go fig

.

Chomsky points out the current war-whore in chief is the fourth US President to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

This is how he sums up Wilson's peaceful intent:

"Woodrow Wilson is the most honored of the presidential laureates and arguably the worst for Latin America.

"Wilson's invasion of Haiti in 1915 killed thousands, restored virtual slavery and left much of the country in ruins.

"Demonstrating his love of democracy, Wilson ordered his Marines to disband the Haitian parliament at gunpoint for failing to pass 'progressive' legislation that allowed U.S. corporations to buy up the country. The problem was remedied when Haitians adopted a U.S.-written constitution, under Marine guns. The achievement would be 'beneficial to Haiti,' the State Department assured its wards.

"Wilson also invaded the Dominican Republic to ensure its welfare. Both countries were left under the rule of vicious national guards. Decades of torture, violence and misery there come down to us as a legacy of 'Wilsonian idealism,' a leading principle of U.S. foreign policy."

Wilson knew that he could commit all kinds of crimes in the name of the lord. The Christian crusades all over again.

.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, clearly most People recognize the problem. Now, how do they solve it?

The problem can be solved as follows:

• End all the wars and bring all US troops back to US soil
• Close all our over 800 bases around the world
• Repeal the War Powers Act
• Cut the defense budget in half

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you claiming that the CBO is both incompetent and lacks credibility?

You changed abruptly from ratio to GDP to deficts? Tsk tsk. That kind of thing can make you really REALLY look like a liberal.

But from your own link:

For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $6.3 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain above 70 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP.) Under current law, the debt is projected to decline from about 76 percent of GDP in 2014 to slightly below 71 percent in 2018 but then to start rising again; by 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 74 percent of GDP and continue to be on an upward path (see figure below).

Mea culpa. Feeling under the weather today so I probably copied the wrong link.

The current projections assume that there will be no increase in tax revenues. In real terms that means that the American people will continue to allow themselves to be driven further and further into debt while the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes. This is unsustainable and will result in an economic collapse. When faced with that reality Congress won't have any other choice but to increase taxes. Whether they do it before or after an economic collapse depends entirely upon the ability of those currently obstructing the inevitable to comprehend what they are doing to this nation.

After every single major war that involved massive spending taxes were increased to pay for it. Republicans have always demanded that there must be revenues to offset spending EXCEPT when it comes to defense spending and wars. The current situation is untenable and will result in economic pain clear across the nation. We have plenty of evidence that pure AUSTERITY programs such as those currently being enforced in the EU sector do more harm than good. It was the economic stimulus that barely staved off another depression. Capitalism fails when there is no revenue in the hands of government and the consumers. The state of perpetual war is intended to keep trillions flowing into the pockets of the defense special interests. The problem with that is without a robust economy that level of spending kills the golden goose. Given the current impasse and the constant demands that the US become involved in yet another war in the middle east the collapse of the economy is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, I have not addressed spending cuts for 2 reasons. Number one the largest social programs are already fully or almost fully funded with tax revenues. Number two the biggest spending of all occurs in the defense sector. You like to show partisan graphs that hide the truth about defense spending but no matter how hard they try it is still the single largest area where spending cuts can be made across the board without harming this nation's ability to defend itself. Until you are willing to address that sacred cow this discussion is going nowhere.

The bottom line is, the government is spending the nation into bankruptcy and nobody but us conservatives seem to care. You said TARP was a one time allocation. Yes it was. But once the TARP money was spent and the stimulus package money was spent, they kept right on spending at those new higher levels every single year since and as far into the future as it is possible to speculate. Government has done that for a very long time. Once we let them spend it, however temporary it is supposed to be, it NEVER gets rolled back. It just gets relabeled into something else.

And that is why we are adding mega billions to the national debt every single day and, unless somebody stops them, they will absorb the entire economy into the government or government control just to fuel that debt.

And again, nobody seems to care but the conservatives.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You changed abruptly from ratio to GDP to deficts? Tsk tsk. That kind of thing can make you really REALLY look like a liberal.

But from your own link:

Mea culpa. Feeling under the weather today so I probably copied the wrong link.

The current projections assume that there will be no increase in tax revenues. In real terms that means that the American people will continue to allow themselves to be driven further and further into debt while the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes. This is unsustainable and will result in an economic collapse. When faced with that reality Congress won't have any other choice but to increase taxes. Whether they do it before or after an economic collapse depends entirely upon the ability of those currently obstructing the inevitable to comprehend what they are doing to this nation.

After every single major war that involved massive spending taxes were increased to pay for it. Republicans have always demanded that there must be revenues to offset spending EXCEPT when it comes to defense spending and wars. The current situation is untenable and will result in economic pain clear across the nation. We have plenty of evidence that pure AUSTERITY programs such as those currently being enforced in the EU sector do more harm than good. It was the economic stimulus that barely staved off another depression. Capitalism fails when there is no revenue in the hands of government and the consumers. The state of perpetual war is intended to keep trillions flowing into the pockets of the defense special interests. The problem with that is without a robust economy that level of spending kills the golden goose. Given the current impasse and the constant demands that the US become involved in yet another war in the middle east the collapse of the economy is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, I have not addressed spending cuts for 2 reasons. Number one the largest social programs are already fully or almost fully funded with tax revenues. Number two the biggest spending of all occurs in the defense sector. You like to show partisan graphs that hide the truth about defense spending but no matter how hard they try it is still the single largest area where spending cuts can be made across the board without harming this nation's ability to defend itself. Until you are willing to address that sacred cow this discussion is going nowhere.

The bottom line is, the government is spending the nation into bankruptcy and nobody but us conservatives seem to care. You said TARP was a one time allocation. Yes it was. But once the TARP money was spent and the stimulus package money was spent, they kept right on spending at those new higher levels every single year since and as far into the future as it is possible to speculate. Government has done that for a very long time. Once we let them spend it, however temporary it is supposed to be, it NEVER gets rolled back. It just gets relabeled into something else.

And that is why we are adding mega billions to the national debt every single day and, unless somebody stops them, they will absorb the entire economy into the government or government control just to fuel that debt.

And again, nobody seems to care but the conservatives.

Your assumption that only conservatives care is false. So is your assumption that the levels of higher spending were maintained. The deficit spending has been dropping ever since it reached a peak because of the 2008 economic collapse. If you want to ignore the FACTS then there is no point in having this discussion. If you want to just blame government without proposing any concrete solutions then there is no point in having this discussion either. We the People are the government so what are We the People going to do about this situation? Blame everyone but ourselves? Try to force a one sided "solution" down the throats of others? Or find a common solution that works for everyone?

 

[Foxfyre]

Mea culpa. Feeling under the weather today so I probably copied the wrong link.

The current projections assume that there will be no increase in tax revenues. In real terms that means that the American people will continue to allow themselves to be driven further and further into debt while the wealthy pay a pittance in taxes. This is unsustainable and will result in an economic collapse. When faced with that reality Congress won't have any other choice but to increase taxes. Whether they do it before or after an economic collapse depends entirely upon the ability of those currently obstructing the inevitable to comprehend what they are doing to this nation.

After every single major war that involved massive spending taxes were increased to pay for it. Republicans have always demanded that there must be revenues to offset spending EXCEPT when it comes to defense spending and wars. The current situation is untenable and will result in economic pain clear across the nation. We have plenty of evidence that pure AUSTERITY programs such as those currently being enforced in the EU sector do more harm than good. It was the economic stimulus that barely staved off another depression. Capitalism fails when there is no revenue in the hands of government and the consumers. The state of perpetual war is intended to keep trillions flowing into the pockets of the defense special interests. The problem with that is without a robust economy that level of spending kills the golden goose. Given the current impasse and the constant demands that the US become involved in yet another war in the middle east the collapse of the economy is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, I have not addressed spending cuts for 2 reasons. Number one the largest social programs are already fully or almost fully funded with tax revenues. Number two the biggest spending of all occurs in the defense sector. You like to show partisan graphs that hide the truth about defense spending but no matter how hard they try it is still the single largest area where spending cuts can be made across the board without harming this nation's ability to defend itself. Until you are willing to address that sacred cow this discussion is going nowhere.

The bottom line is, the government is spending the nation into bankruptcy and nobody but us conservatives seem to care. You said TARP was a one time allocation. Yes it was. But once the TARP money was spent and the stimulus package money was spent, they kept right on spending at those new higher levels every single year since and as far into the future as it is possible to speculate. Government has done that for a very long time. Once we let them spend it, however temporary it is supposed to be, it NEVER gets rolled back. It just gets relabeled into something else.

And that is why we are adding mega billions to the national debt every single day and, unless somebody stops them, they will absorb the entire economy into the government or government control just to fuel that debt.

And again, nobody seems to care but the conservatives.

Your assumption that only conservatives care is false. So is your assumption that the levels of higher spending were maintained. The deficit spending has been dropping ever since it reached a peak because of the 2008 economic collapse. If you want to ignore the FACTS then there is no point in having this discussion. If you want to just blame government without proposing any concrete solutions then there is no point in having this discussion either. We the People are the government so what are We the People going to do about this situation? Blame everyone but ourselves? Try to force a one sided "solution" down the throats of others? Or find a common solution that works for everyone?

And you keep moving the goal posts. I wasn't talking about deficit spending. I was talking about spending. Whether they borrow the money or drain the economy of it, it has largely the same effect. They spend more year after year after year. If you can show me ANY year in recent history that the government spent less or even close to the same amount as the year before, you might have some justification for your passionate defense of them.

And reductions in trillion dollar deficits don't mean a hell of a lot when deficits are projected to never get much below $400 billion a year for the next decade and that 'low' amount will be brief and fleeting.

We have had four straight years of $1 trillion plus deficits. The CBO projects a $669 billion deficit this year due to sequestration and slight improvement in the economy, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Obama's budget projects reduction in the deficit of $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. That would be less than 10% of the deficits we have been running. This also supposes that we really will save the money with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down and assumes that Congress won't spend the money saved on something else. Which they have always done for a long time now. And the projection is based on Obama's assumption that the economy will generate $6 in revenues for every $1 in spending increases over the next 10 years. That is a HUGE assumption. But there is ZERO assumption that they will even try to balance a budget.

And nobody seems to care but the conservatives. Everybody else tries to divert attention from it, mnimalize it, excuse it, ignore it, blame Bush, or pretend that promised 10% reduction in the deficit is significant--anybody want to buy a nice bridge or two?

The CBO is required to use the projections the Congress and/or the President feed to it. As a result it is rarely, if ever, accurate in its projections. But even if we go with the CBO's projections:

Overall, the budget office says Obama's budget would produce $5.2 trillion in red ink through 2023. That is $1.1 trillion less than the deficits that would be generated over that time if no tax or spending laws are changed.
CBO: Obama budget cuts deficits $1.1T by 2023 | Deseret News

Now is this okay with you? Or is it still only the conservatives who care?

 

[numan]

Well, clearly most People recognize the problem. Now, how do they solve it?

The problem can be solved as follows:

• End all the wars and bring all US troops back to US soil
• Close all our over 800 bases around the world
• Repeal the War Powers Act
• Cut the defense budget in half

But that is mere fantasy. The people who rule America will never permit that to happen, and, under the present system of government, you have no power to make them change.

Instead of wasting effort on symptoms, it would be better to focus on getting rid of America's antiquated and useless Constitution.

Of course, the rulers will not permit that, either, but when their rickety House of Cards collapses, as it inevitably will, you will at least be better placed to save something from the wreckage if you concentrate on fundamentals, like forming a rational Constitution that could work in the 21st century.
.

 

[Billo_Really]

But that is mere fantasy. The people who rule America will never permit that to happen, and, under the present system of government, you have no power to make them change.

Instead of wasting effort on symptoms, it would be better to focus on getting rid of America's antiquated and useless Constitution.

Of course, the rulers will not permit that, either, but when their rickety House of Cards collapses, as it inevitably will, you will at least be better placed to save something from the wreckage if you concentrate on fundamentals, like forming a rational Constitution that could work in the 21st century.
.

I'm of the opinion if we just could become a more well-informed republic, the problems we have will be fixed as a by-product of that.

 

[noose4]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about is very much alive and healthy and has been with us at least since WW2, you count the Cold War and small interventions like Grenada and such we are pretty much always some what engaged.

 

[numan]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about is very much alive and healthy and has been with us at least since WW2, you count the Cold War and small interventions like Grenada and such we are pretty much always some what engaged.

The Military-Industrial Conspiracy is profitably engaged in production and waste at all times, but the war profiteers definitely make a lot more money when Americans can be bamboozled to go into a real shooting war.
.

 

[numan]

I'm of the opinion if we just could become a more well-informed republic, the problems we have will be fixed as a by-product of that.

Oh, you dreamer! How are people going to become well-informed when all the entertainment and other propaganda teaches most people to despise education and regard the educated as "uncool" nerds -- and when the information available to most people is so rigorously managed by the gate-keepers of the mass media?

Why do you think our rulers have arranged that the ownership and control of most of the mass media are concentrated in so few hands? Are you really so naive as to imagine that the mass of the people are really left free to think what they choose?

Where there is no official censorship, it is pretty certain that the official spokesmen have all the loudspeakers.
---Paul Goodman
.

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is mere fantasy. The people who rule America will never permit that to happen, and, under the present system of government, you have no power to make them change.

Instead of wasting effort on symptoms, it would be better to focus on getting rid of America's antiquated and useless Constitution.

Of course, the rulers will not permit that, either, but when their rickety House of Cards collapses, as it inevitably will, you will at least be better placed to save something from the wreckage if you concentrate on fundamentals, like forming a rational Constitution that could work in the 21st century.
.

I'm of the opinion if we just could become a more well-informed republic, the problems we have will be fixed as a by-product of that.

Actually I agree with this provided it is a well informed public grounded in a solid sense of right and wrong and pretty well agreed on which is which. But when one side controls most of education and the media, it won't happen because that side will control the message that gets to most of the people. This inevitably leaves the public largely uninformed and/or intentionally dumbed down to the point that I think most Americans now don't even bother to try to pay attention, much less become personally involved. Or they operate within the parameters that are dictated to them.

And if you add into that mix the fairly new phenomena of fanatical partisanship that includes demonization of any different point of view, the whole thing is greatly exacerbated.

And the perpetual war machine along with every other corrupting force in our society goes largely unchallenged.

 

[Billo_Really]

Actually I agree with this provided it is a well informed public grounded in a solid sense of right and wrong and pretty well agreed on which is which. But when one side controls most of education and the media, it won't happen because that side will control the message that gets to most of the people. This inevitably leaves the public largely uninformed and/or intentionally dumbed down to the point that I think most Americans now don't even bother to try to pay attention, much less become personally involved. Or they operate within the parameters that are dictated to them.

And if you add into that mix the fairly new phenomena of fanatical partisanship that includes demonization of any different point of view, the whole thing is greatly exacerbated.

And the perpetual war machine along with every other corrupting force in our society goes largely unchallenged.

You're putting the burden of being well-informed on others, when it should rest soley with you.

People who desire the truth, will do what it takes to get it.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm of the opinion if we just could become a more well-informed republic, the problems we have will be fixed as a by-product of that.

Oh, you dreamer! How are people going to become well-informed when all the entertainment and other propaganda teaches most people to despise education and regard the educated as "uncool" nerds -- and when the information available to most people is so rigorously managed by the gate-keepers of the mass media?

Why do you think our rulers have arranged that the ownership and control of most of the mass media are concentrated in so few hands? Are you really so naive as to imagine that the mass of the people are really left free to think what they choose?

Where there is no official censorship, it is pretty certain that the official spokesmen have all the loudspeakers.
---Paul Goodman
.

For those who get all their information from that "box" in the corner, no.

For the others, people that want the truth, will do the things to get it.

 

[numan]

For those who get all their information from that "box" in the corner, no.

For the others, people that want the truth, will do the things to get it.

In other words, almost no one!!

But why should I bore you with my opinion? Here is Governor Jeb Bush, quoted in a book by Uri Dowbenko, Bushwhacked, speaking to retired Naval Intelligence Officer Al Martin (Sept. 2002):

"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million-or-so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you've got another think coming. Because the million-or-so people in this country who are truly interested in the truth don't have any money."

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually I agree with this provided it is a well informed public grounded in a solid sense of right and wrong and pretty well agreed on which is which. But when one side controls most of education and the media, it won't happen because that side will control the message that gets to most of the people. This inevitably leaves the public largely uninformed and/or intentionally dumbed down to the point that I think most Americans now don't even bother to try to pay attention, much less become personally involved. Or they operate within the parameters that are dictated to them.

And if you add into that mix the fairly new phenomena of fanatical partisanship that includes demonization of any different point of view, the whole thing is greatly exacerbated.

And the perpetual war machine along with every other corrupting force in our society goes largely unchallenged.

You're putting the burden of being well-informed on others, when it should rest soley with you.

People who desire the truth, will do what it takes to get it.

Those who think they already have the truth don't go looking for something else though. And I do believe the adults need to teach the children and help them avoid making the mistakes we have learned not to make. And I believe we must make accurate information and honest history available to them and do not presume to tell them what to think, but rather teach them HOW to think so that they will process what they learn in a way to do things better than we have.

If you have an education system skewed to indoctrinate rather than teach, that skews the information to be how some WANT it to appear rather than what actually happened, the children have no way to know that they aren't being educated.

I've watched maybe a dozen 'man-on-the-street- interviews involving several people each now, and it is shocking how many--probably eight or nine out of ten--had no clue where Benghazi was or what had happened at our consulate there. When you have a media that reports only what fits a particular ideological or politically correct perspective or that avoids casting their heroes in any kind of negative light, you cannot have a population who is informed.

Everybody isn't going to to be a history or political or media junkie as some of us are. And in many cases you have to know what you don't know before you can know what you need to educate yourself about.

 

[Billo_Really]

Those who think they already have the truth don't go looking for something else though.

That's true.

And I do believe the adults need to teach the children and help them avoid making the mistakes we have learned not to make.

Children only learn what they want to learn, not what we want them to learn.

And I believe we must make accurate information and honest history available to them and do not presume to tell them what to think, but rather teach them HOW to think so that they will process what they learn in a way to do things better than we have.

We can't "teach" them how to think, but we can "show" them how to think.

If you have an education system skewed to indoctrinate rather than teach, that skews the information to be how some WANT it to appear rather than what actually happened, the children have no way to know that they aren't being educated.

That's true to a point, afterwards, they can find out on their own.

I've watched maybe a dozen 'man-on-the-street- interviews involving several people each now, and it is shocking how many--probably eight or nine out of ten--had no clue where Benghazi was or what had happened at our consulate there.

Yeah, but there's a lot of people who do, that refuse to believe the reasons why it happened.

When you have a media that reports only what fits a particular ideological or politically correct perspective or that avoids casting their heroes in any kind of negative light, you cannot have a population who is informed.

The media does that for both sides, it just depends on whose in office at the time.

Everybody isn't going to to be a history or political or media junkie as some of us are. And in many cases you have to know what you don't know before you can know what you need to educate yourself about.

That's true.

 

[Billo_Really]

In other words, almost no one!!

But why should I bore you with my opinion? Here is Governor Jeb Bush, quoted in a book by Uri Dowbenko, Bushwhacked, speaking to retired Naval Intelligence Officer Al Martin (Sept. 2002):

"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million-or-so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you've got another think coming. Because the million-or-so people in this country who are truly interested in the truth don't have any money."

.

So what are you saying, that we shouldn't care about the truth?

 

[ArcticDaishi]

Unfortunately it would seem that we are, and have been for a long time.