CDZ Is the U.S. involved in too many wars?

[namvet]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

$$$$$$$$

 

[Tehon]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

$$$$$$$$

Money gives the US the right?

 

[namvet]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

What right does the US have to oil buried beneath foreign soil?

$$$$$$$$

Money gives the US the right?

shit walks and money talks.

 

[phoenyx]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

 

[320 Years of History]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

....And so briefly and somewhat obliquely alluded to is the double-edged sword of fomenting political instability....

That article asserts a degree of deliberacy in the nascence of ISIS that hardly seems accurate for anyone not given to conspiracy theories. The author writes, "Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region." If one is to accept that as being credibly so, inexorably one eventually must also accede that events like "Pulse" and "San Bernadino," and every other ISIS inspired calamity are but calculated but necessary sacrifices in the pursuit of a strategy to conscript distant oil resources, or at the very least to keep the nations who own them under the US thumb.

Now it isn't beyond comprehension to think that the U.S. has wanted in the course of modern times maintain a level of influence in the Middle East that amounts to a stranglehold, but the idea that ISIS is the "tool" the U.S. implemented to do so is just preposterous. There's no question that geopolitical imperatives can at times make for strange bedfellows; the U.S. is no stranger to cozying of that nature. The Taliban-U.S. alliance of sorts during the Soviet-Afghan war is one such example; however, seen through the lens of the 1980s, not nearly so.

Can one argue that the evolution of that and other errant relationships was indeed orchestrated as the article asserts? Yes, clearly one can for Garikai Chengu has done. What strikes me as far more plausible is that the U.S. is willing to allow ISIS to use its resources weaken certain regimes is despises and weaken itself in the process. But that's about playing a dangerous and for some, deadly, game of timing and prognostication. That's a far cry from actively creating and directing things.

 

[Abishai100]

The Field

War is more than anything a human issue. When people analyse or evaluate war, they talk about death tolls, the cultural impact on the homefront, the morale of the soldiers on the frontline, and the attitude of the negotiators.

In the 1996 IRA-exposition film Michael Collins, the tensions between British policy and Irish freedom-fighters leads to inevitable human tensions between the leaders of the IRA, even though the conflict is seemingly purely political.

I'm a big fan of the American paramilitary fantasy-adventure comic book franchise G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Hasbro), which presents dramatic stories about patriotic soldiers called G.I. Joes vying with members of a diabolical terrorist organization called Cobra. Battle lines are drawn and become dramatic, and strange bedfellows and alliances surface and create further strength and passion intrigue.

The Cobra leaders Serpentor and Cobra Commander often compete for authority, and they both express affection interest in the female Cobra leader Pythona. The leaders of G.I. Joe, Duke and Snake Eyes, often work together very well and rarely compete for authority, even though they both express affection interest for the female G.I. Joe soldier Scarlett.

Because Cobra leaders are caught up in power ambitions and love competitions among their key leaders (more so than the G.I. Joes), their group cohesion weaknesses bubble to the surface, allowing the G.I. Joes to capitalize and defend perimeters that are made vulnerable by 'human pride.'

So we see how in the arts, we characterize the humanness of war itself, so to ask if America, history's greatest super-power, is involved in *too many* wars is really to ask if America has an obligation to be spiritual leaders.

 

[phoenyx]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

....And so briefly and somewhat obliquely alluded to is the double-edged sword of fomenting political instability....

Right...

That article asserts a degree of deliberacy in the nascence of ISIS that hardly seems accurate for anyone not given to conspiracy theories. The author writes, "Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region." If one is to accept that as being credibly so, inexorably one eventually must also accede that events like "Pulse" and "San Bernadino," and every other ISIS inspired calamity are but calculated but necessary sacrifices in the pursuit of a strategy to conscript distant oil resources, or at the very least to keep the nations who own them under the US thumb.

Now it isn't beyond comprehension to think that the U.S. has wanted in the course of modern times maintain a level of influence in the Middle East that amounts to a stranglehold, but the idea that ISIS is the "tool" the U.S. implemented to do so is just preposterous.

I don't think so, though I do think the author goes a bit too far in claiming that ISIS was 'made in the USA'. More like the U.S.'s actions in the region played a big part in its creation.

There's no question that geopolitical imperatives can at times make for strange bedfellows; the U.S. is no stranger to cozying of that nature. The Taliban-U.S. alliance of sorts during the Soviet-Afghan war is one such example; however, seen through the lens of the 1980s, not nearly so.

Could you elaborate a bit more on your point here? I'd rather not guess at what you mean here...

Can one argue that the evolution of that and other errant relationships was indeed orchestrated as the article asserts? Yes, clearly one can for Garikai Chengu has done. What strikes me as far more plausible is that the U.S. is willing to allow ISIS to use its resources weaken certain regimes is despises and weaken itself in the process. But that's about playing a dangerous and for some, deadly, game of timing and prognostication. That's a far cry from actively creating and directing things.

I agree, the article goes too far in regards to ISIS, but I think it does make some good points.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could you elaborate a bit more on your point here? I'd rather not guess at what you mean here...

• Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• America’s Surprising Allies
  
• Vietnam and America’s surprising turn from foes to friends
  
• Battling ISIS on the Frontlines, Old Enemies Form Surprising Alliance

Off Topic:
You may recall last week Trump stated that he'd welcome as an ally any nation that aided the U.S. in the fight against ISIS. I thought, Dear God, that's all we need. What is that nut going to do when another nut -- Kim Jong Un -- decides to use his military to fight ISIS and invade South Korea or Japan. Just another example of the stupid ass things Trump will say in public because the harebrained idea crossed his mind, so, of course, across his lips the words came. Such is the man's hubris.

 

[phoenyx]

The Field

War is more than anything a human issue. When people analyse or evaluate war, they talk about death tolls, the cultural impact on the homefront, the morale of the soldiers on the frontline, and the attitude of the negotiators.

In the 1996 IRA-exposition film Michael Collins, the tensions between British policy and Irish freedom-fighters leads to inevitable human tensions between the leaders of the IRA, even though the conflict is seemingly purely political.

I'm a big fan of the American paramilitary fantasy-adventure comic book franchise G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Hasbro), which presents dramatic stories about patriotic soldiers called G.I. Joes vying with members of a diabolical terrorist organization called Cobra. Battle lines are drawn and become dramatic, and strange bedfellows and alliances surface and create further strength and passion intrigue.

The Cobra leaders Serpentor and Cobra Commander often compete for authority, and they both express affection interest in the female Cobra leader Pythona. The leaders of G.I. Joe, Duke and Snake Eyes, often work together very well and rarely compete for authority, even though they both express affection interest for the female G.I. Joe soldier Scarlett.

Because Cobra leaders are caught up in power ambitions and love competitions among their key leaders (more so than the G.I. Joes), their group cohesion weaknesses bubble to the surface, allowing the G.I. Joes to capitalize and defend perimeters that are made vulnerable by 'human pride.'

An interesting analysis of GI Joe. I never followed it enough to make the observations you did, but they sound good. To be honest, I never really liked it all that much. The good guys were too good, the bad guys too bad, and they didn't even have the compensation of costumes that were fairly revealing as to what was underneath (I'm thinking of Thundercats, and yes, I was pretty young at the time ). My favourite cartoon when I was very young that I watched regularly (instead of the one that I only saw a few times, Saint Seiya, I didn't get it on my own TV, only could see it when I went to a friend's house) was Transformers. The good/bad dichotomy was still too black and white but it still seemed more complicated then most cartoons.

My favourite animated film as a kid was The Last Unicorn. The difference between good and bad in that one was not quite so clear cut. But I think my all time favourite animated series for the blurring of the lines between good and bad would have to be Rah Xephon- I saw that when I was an adult, and don't recommend it for young kids.

So we see how in the arts, we characterize the humanness of war itself, so to ask if America, history's greatest super-power, is involved in *too many* wars is really to ask if America has an obligation to be spiritual leaders.

I'm not so sure about that. Nevertheless, it would certainly be nice if that were the case.

 

[phoenyx]

Could you elaborate a bit more on your point here? I'd rather not guess at what you mean here...

• Operation Cyclone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• America’s Surprising Allies
  
• Vietnam and America’s surprising turn from foes to friends
  
• Battling ISIS on the Frontlines, Old Enemies Form Surprising Alliance

Got it. Things like Operation Cyclone is what I'd thought you meant. The second link doesn't seem to go to the right place. Third and fourth link were quite interesting.

Off Topic:
You may recall last week Trump stated that he'd welcome as an ally any nation that aided the U.S. in the fight against ISIS. I thought, Dear God, that's all we need. What is that nut going to do when another nut -- Kim Jong Un -- decides to use his military to fight ISIS and invade South Korea or Japan. Just another example of the stupid ass things Trump will say in public because the harebrained idea crossed his mind, so, of course, across his lips the words came. Such is the man's hubris.

I also hope Trump doesn't get elected. That being said, I think he was really thinking of Russia. I think Obama was wise to work with Russia rather than against it when it comes to Syria.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

Yea we know, Obama did something unheard of in modern U.S. military history, he called the war over, didn't tell the other guy and pulled troops out.

We still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Afghanistan to prevent an ISIS in those country's.


Not that complicated is it?




.

 

[GaryDog]

Even the definition of what constitutes a war is up for grabs. I particularly liked an article from mintpressnews published a little under 2 years ago. Here's ane excerpt:
**
The White House spent much of last week trying to figure out if the word “war” was the right one to describe its military actions against the Islamic State.

You know, for all the clear distaste for everything having to do with Islamic State, I'd have thought by now that the U.S. Congress would have formally declared war on ISIS. I realize that gives ISIS a degree of legitimacy, which is part of what they want, but screw that. Declare the war and "legitimize" their asses into oblivion. LOL

So all this uncertainty about what is and is not a war is just BS in my mind. Declare the war and there won't be any question of whether we are at war.

​

Sadly, modern day Congresses are a bunch of spineless and manipulative sons of bitches, IMO. It seems to me they'd rather just not vote on things.

• SCOTUS appointment --> Why not just vote and be done?
• War on ISIS --> Vote to declare the war or don't, but at least hold the vote.

You know what Congress will vote on? More vacation days for themselves.

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

Yea we know, Obama did something unheard of in modern U.S. military history, he called the war over, didn't tell the other guy and pulled troops out.

We still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Afghanistan to prevent an ISIS in those country's.


Not that complicated is it?




.

That's not why we have troops in those countries.

 

[phoenyx]

All they need to do, is conquer the oil wells, fortify the hell out of them and let the rest of the world do what it will.

I'm glad that you agree that the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but how about lessening its dependence on foreign oil instead of 'conquering the oil wells'?

yeah like that's gonna happen.

One way or another, the U.S. (and the rest of the world) is going to have to lessen its dependence on oil. Even assuming that the oil reserves will replenish themselves somehow, denying Global Warming isn't going to just make it go away -.-

 

[phoenyx]

I voted other because while I feel that we are involved in too many wars my main gripe is that they are very inconsequential, very poorly handled, and ultimately not even worth bothering with.

Inconsequential to whom?

 

[phoenyx]

I have a question to all the participants of this thread.

What are the information sources you are using to answer the poll? How do you know there are wars happening?

Wikipedia introduces the term thusly:
"War is a state of armed conflict between societies. It is generally characterized by extreme aggression, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces."

Source: War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One reporter tallied the true amount of wars the U.S. was involved in around 2 years ago as 134:
The US Is Now Involved In 134 Wars

Originally, the U.S. Senate had to allow the U.S. President to go to wars of this nature, but that's no longer the case. Nowadays, U.S. Presidents can declare a "war on terror" or another label of this nature, foment political instability that leads to groups like ISIS, and then proceed to bomb a country's infrastructure to smithereens on the pretext of getting rid of the group their machinations they helped create, while refusing to take in most of the resulting refugees.

 

[phoenyx]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

For this link to be any good it would have to lists the "conflicts" we are engaged in and why we are there....

So if the specific reason isn't listed, it's not happening ?

Iraq and Afganistan are part of the same effort.....so that is one.....

I imagine most if not all wars the U.S. is now fighting could be listed under the catch all "War on Terror", Obama's dislike of the term notwithstanding. Personally, I think if U.S. troops or "advisors" are killing people in a foreign country, that should qualify as a war. Personally I think an article from MintPressNews is quite elucidating, as it has 3 different options as to how many wars the U.S. is currently involved in:
0 (supposedly only the Senate can approve a war, and they haven't done so since World War II)
5- **Consider the definition of war put forth by Linda Bilmes (Harvard Kennedy School) and Michael Intriligator (UCLA), who defined war in a 2013 paper as “conflicts where the US is launching extensive military incursions, including drone attacks, but that are not officially ‘declared.'

By that definition, the United States is at war in five places right now: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.**

Or up to 134:
**
Total # of wars: 134

Whoa!

Surprising, right? In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) — one of the nine organizational units that make up the Unified Combatant Command — had special operations forces (SOFs) in 134 countries, where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and training foreign forces. (Mostly this last thing, according to public statements.)

Since most of what SOFs do is classified, all we know about them is what we get told about them. Here’s what we’re told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“Special operations forces (SOF) are small, specially organized units manned by people carefully selected and trained to operate under physically demanding and psychologically stressful conditions to accomplish missions using modified equipment and unconventional applications of tactics against strategic and operational objectives. The unique capabilities of SOF complement those of conventional forces.”

And what do they do?

“Joint special operations (SO) are conducted by SOF from more than one Service in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations may require low visibility, clandestine, or covert capabilities. SO are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. SO differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, use of special equipment, modes of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets.”

Examples:
"These tasks include special reconnaissance (SR), direct action (DA), unconventional warfare (UW), foreign internal defense (FID), counterterrorism, counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)[.]”
**

And finally, as I suggested, 1:
**
Total # of wars: 1

“The world is a battlefield” isn’t just a vague, hawkish worldview — it’s a legal understanding of military force in the age of a single, global war: the War on Terror.

The world is a battlefield thanks in large part to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 and which gives the President of the United States broad power to fight terrorism around the world.**

 

[phoenyx]

You would think we would be at zero right now with the Nobel peace prize president, ironic we are in more wars today then in 2008

God forbid if hillary wins one too.

Technically, the U.S. hasn't been at war since World War II. The problem here is that congress gave the President the power to engage in wars without actually declaring them (that would require congressional approval). I had hoped that Bernie would win the democratic nomination. As things stand now, I've put my support behind Jill Stein. Pretty unlikely that she'll be anything other then a speed bump in the coming election, but I can't support Hillary, and I -definitely- can't support Trump.

True and congress will never declare another war again.

You never know, Congress may one day wrest the power of waging war away the Presidency again, or atleast require him to declare it before calling on troops to wage it.

We had an authorization for the use of force....the Constitution doesn't give a form for declaring war...so an authorization for the use of force works just as well.....

Looks like having a "use of force" authorization (by whom?) is the newfangled way for the U.S. to declare war now apparently -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

Here's an excerpt from an article on Global Research concerning ISIS...
**
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance....

**

Read more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

Yea we know, Obama did something unheard of in modern U.S. military history, he called the war over, didn't tell the other guy and pulled troops out.

Actually, the Bush Administration signed the agreement with Iraq that there would be a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by 2009:
**In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a specific date, 30 June 2009, by which American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities, and a complete withdrawal date from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011.[13]**

Source: Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama actually extended the withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi cities by 10 months:
**On 27 February 2009, at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, President Barack Obama announced his revision to the original date of withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq. The revision was to extend the original date of 30 June 2009 for an additional 10 months, to 31 August 2010.**

And ofcourse, that was only the "combat troops". Obama essentially kept to Bush's schedule regarding the withdrawal of the "Transitional" troops that were left after the "Combat" troops had been withdrawn:
**After which all but a "transitional force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops would be withdrawn from the Middle Eastern nation. President Obama reaffirmed commitment to the original complete withdrawal date of 31 December 2011, set by the agreement between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government.[28] President Obama defined the task of the transitional force as "training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq".[29]**

Ironically, the Obama administration actually tried to extend the withdrawal of this transitional force as well, but the Iraqi government wasn't having it, so they finally did withdraw the remaining troops a little bit ahead of time:
**With the collapse of discussions about extending the stay of U.S. troops,[34][35] President Obama announced the full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, as previously scheduled, on 21 October 2011.[35]**

We still have troops in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Afghanistan to prevent an ISIS in those country's.

I think GaryDog said it best:

That's not why we have troops in those countries.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

No, we are not.

First of all, it is in our DNA to fight for others. Going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, we have a historical reputation as a country willing to send men, and women; to die for the freedom of others.

Secondly, as the world's sole super power we have a moral obligation to defend the less fortunate.

The problem is we don't fight to WIN the wars we get involved in.

 

[phoenyx]

A poll was done a few years ago by The Hill on the subject of this thread, and I decided to do a simpler one here. For anyone who'd like to go further than the poll, I'd like them to explain why they chose one answer over the others. For my part, I definitely believe the U.S. is involved in too many wars, but I'll hold off on explaining why, at least until asked.

**
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.


Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren’t sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.
Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Those findings were echoed when voters were asked about Iraq.

Forty percent said the military intervention in Iraq has made no difference when it comes to U.S. safety, compared to 32 percent who said the United States is safer because of it. Twenty percent said the country is less safe because of action in Iraq.
**

Source: The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places

No, we are not.

First of all, it is in our DNA to fight for others.

What evidence do you have that the U.S. enters most wars to "fight for others"? From where I stand, not only is the U.S. not "fighting for others", it's not even fighting for most of the U.S. population. I would argue that the only ones who generally benefit are those running the military industrial complex, and I would argue that what this elite is actually doing is preying on other nations' resource wealth and giving a reason for the military industrial complex to keep up spending at record levels, while giving lip service to fighting for freedoms.

Going all the way back to the Monroe Doctrine, we have a historical reputation as a country willing to send men, and women; to die for the freedom of others.

Wikipedia's introduction to the Monroe Doctrine makes no mention of having Americans die for the freedom of others. Here's what it -does- say:
**The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the Americas in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."[1] At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.**

Source: Monroe Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like a "don't bother us and we won't bother you" doctrine to me.

Secondly, as the world's sole super power we have a moral obligation to defend the less fortunate.

Perhaps, but I really don't think that's actually what's going on. I think U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler said it best when it came to wars in general:
**War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.**

Source: War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935