Quantcast

Why is the USA Fighting Other People's Wars?

Related Topics: Afghanistan, United States, Wealth, Tax

Why are United States citizens in the US Military fighting and dying in other people wars?

This is a serious question. I really have no idea of why US citizens are fighting and dying in other peoples wars and I would be grateful for some serious explanation.

Why are the lives of US citizens and the tax dollars of US tax payers being expended in fight wars in other countries where the locals don't want to fight for their own issues?

Our citizens are encouraged to fight and die in foreign lands for the benefit of some foreign people who do not have the will to fight for themselves or to support our citizens as our citizens fight for their benefit.

These wars present no actual threat to the US. We could easily carpet bomb Afghanistan or just nuke it and get the people who have struck at us. We could be done in a few days and get back to the more important issues of resolving our own internal problems.

We grow the cattle feed for the world. We could hold up exports of animal feed products for 45 days and cause most of these countries to experience famine that they have never dreamed of.

We have our own problems and the money that is being spent on other peoples problem could be better spent on solving our own problems.

We have gained nothing but enemies by participating in the traditional never ending wars of Europe, Asia and Africa. These are places that have never been at peace in history of mankind for more than 25 years. There is always somebody killing somebody somewhere in the areas and there is no indication that they are interested in the least in stopping.

We fight and die to save these people from themselves only so they can kill or be killed in some other conflict. What's the point?

Why are United States citizens in the US Military fighting and dying in other people wars?

Why is the wealth of the United States being wasted on wars in countries where there is no direct benefit to the United States?

I am asking for your considered opinions and that you shed some light on this mystery by your response to either or both questions.

I am not asking for a load of bad mannered mental vomit so if that is all you have, dump it some where else.



You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • StarrGazerr 2010/07/28 01:47:36
    StarrGazerr
    +5
    I think this is a very complex question worthy of a much more civil response than many you seem to be getting.

    I would certainly prefer to see that this nation never gets involved in a war save to defend ourselves from direct foreign attack, but I don't think that is genuinely possible. We are not an unfeeling people. If Canada were invaded, for instance, I would have no problems with helping her defend herself, and not simply on the "we might be next" theory. Realistically, we cannot pretend to be alone in the world. Just as we look to our allies to assist us when we are attacked, they look to us to return the favor. Though I (of course) believe we had no reason to invade Iraq, at the same time we looked to other nations to assist us, and if they look to us to "return the favor", could we turn our backs on them? Would the United States even be here today if France had said "we don't want to get involved"?

    I think the problem would be resolved if there was a rule that the people who make the decision to go to war have to fight it. Apart from George Washington, I can't envision any President gloriously leading the troops into battle.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • sue 2012/01/09 14:04:55
    sue
    +1
    The US developed a giant military supply structure during the cold war, and pulling out of its role as the world police would crash that industry. There are some other reasons, of course, but I believe that this reason is most influential and least talked about.

    When we "give" military aid to other countries, we lend them money to buy US weapons, and then "donate" training time from our own military. It buys us loyalty from some allies, and gives the US more control, in addition to selling weapons.

    The current wars, Afghanistan was payback, but the situation is very complicated and the "front" has now moved to Pakistan. You could not really carpet bomb Afghanistan as you said. The repercussions of killing all those civilians would be too hard to deal with internationally, and would be morally repugnant to us as a people. The current administration is using diplomacy more aggressively so the military engagement can end.

    Iraq was a pre-emptive war, and a terrible precendent. Let's hope it's the last one like that.

    Some interventions are for moral reasons, like the current entaglement in Central Africa. In the intervention in Libya, other countries for the first time in NATO history bore the brunt of the cost and manpower.

    During the Cold War we propped up leaders we li...



    The US developed a giant military supply structure during the cold war, and pulling out of its role as the world police would crash that industry. There are some other reasons, of course, but I believe that this reason is most influential and least talked about.

    When we "give" military aid to other countries, we lend them money to buy US weapons, and then "donate" training time from our own military. It buys us loyalty from some allies, and gives the US more control, in addition to selling weapons.

    The current wars, Afghanistan was payback, but the situation is very complicated and the "front" has now moved to Pakistan. You could not really carpet bomb Afghanistan as you said. The repercussions of killing all those civilians would be too hard to deal with internationally, and would be morally repugnant to us as a people. The current administration is using diplomacy more aggressively so the military engagement can end.

    Iraq was a pre-emptive war, and a terrible precendent. Let's hope it's the last one like that.

    Some interventions are for moral reasons, like the current entaglement in Central Africa. In the intervention in Libya, other countries for the first time in NATO history bore the brunt of the cost and manpower.

    During the Cold War we propped up leaders we liked in Latin America to boost US interests and investments. In that case, the US was benefitting itself at th eexpense of local people in many cases. Let's hope we are through with propping up dictators too. (Though I fear we are not.)

    For other entaglements, the US still has troops in Japan, Germany, and Korea. It helps us be more influential, and keeps the demand for weapons high. At one point the US was set topull troops out of Japan and they asked the US to stay. At that point, we should ask for money.

    While I agree that the US should not be involved everywhere and that other countries should share in the costs and risk, the US spends more on their military than all other countries put together, and so is often the most ready to intervene. In addition, the big military contractors give a lot of money to politicians and PACS, and now don't even have to disclose it. It's worse than the oil industry.
    (more)
  • Mordeca... sue 2012/01/09 23:46:49
    Mordecai Jones
    I have no problem with selling arms to any of the various countries who entertain themselves by killing each other. Sell them, or give them the bullets, bombs, fighter planes or what ever they need to have a ball killing each other. I can understand, appreciate and agree with that concept.

    There is a wisdom in selling them last year's model of our current production run weapons. It is called using your customers for Beta testing. If we don't sell them the weapons it's not like their going to suddenly stop killing each other. They have been busy for millenia at the process of killing each other and there is nothing that would indicate that they are going to stop.

    My objection is to the concept of putting even one US citizen in harms way for the benefit of people who are going to kill each other anyway.
  • sue Mordeca... 2012/01/10 00:26:59
    sue
    +1
    We are giving "loans" to people to buy our weapons. That amounts to arming them on the backs of taxpayers to support and subsidize the weapons industry, and I do have a problem with that. Selling them outright? Sure.

    I don't think that the US should put troops on the ground lightly either. In Iraq, we squandered lives for no reason. It was wrong. I do think that it was necessary to try to route Al Qaeda, however. And the US benefits from not having the bulk of Africa being a breeding ground for more terrorists, because unstable militias have taken over. I think the Cold War interventions were wrong. Sometimes, US involvement is necessary. However, those time probably amount to about 10% of the times the US gets involved. I think there is an obligation to honor our NATO agreement, and if NATO decides to intervene, the US should participate. However, I think it should be more like the last actions in Libya, where other countries pulled their weight, not like past actions where we say its a "NATO" force and the US bears the cost and the risk to lives.

    In the end, however, must of what the US military does is subsidize weapons developers in their R&D so they can then sell the weapons developed by taxpayers to others for profit.
  • Mordeca... sue 2012/01/10 18:33:11
    Mordecai Jones
    +1
    It is an easy matter to develop and sell weapons to people who delight in killing each other, but that enterprise does not require US troops to be involved.
  • sue 2012/01/09 14:04:54
    sue
    +1
    The US developed a giant military supply structure during the cold war, and pulling out of its role as the world police would crash that industry. There are some other reasons, of course, but I believe that this reason is most influential and least talked about.

    When we "give" military aid to other countries, we lend them money to buy US weapons, and then "donate" training time from our own military. It buys us loyalty from some allies, and gives the US more control, in addition to selling weapons.

    The current wars, Afghanistan was payback, but the situation is very complicated and the "front" has now moved to Pakistan. You could not really carpet bomb Afghanistan as you said. The repercussions of killing all those civilians would be too hard to deal with internationally, and would be morally repugnant to us as a people. The current administration is using diplomacy more aggressively so the military engagement can end.

    Iraq was a pre-emptive war, and a terrible precendent. Let's hope it's the last one like that.

    Some interventions are for moral reasons, like the current entaglement in Central Africa. In the intervention in Libya, other countries for the first time in NATO history bore the brunt of the cost and manpower.

    During the Cold War we propped up leaders we li...



    The US developed a giant military supply structure during the cold war, and pulling out of its role as the world police would crash that industry. There are some other reasons, of course, but I believe that this reason is most influential and least talked about.

    When we "give" military aid to other countries, we lend them money to buy US weapons, and then "donate" training time from our own military. It buys us loyalty from some allies, and gives the US more control, in addition to selling weapons.

    The current wars, Afghanistan was payback, but the situation is very complicated and the "front" has now moved to Pakistan. You could not really carpet bomb Afghanistan as you said. The repercussions of killing all those civilians would be too hard to deal with internationally, and would be morally repugnant to us as a people. The current administration is using diplomacy more aggressively so the military engagement can end.

    Iraq was a pre-emptive war, and a terrible precendent. Let's hope it's the last one like that.

    Some interventions are for moral reasons, like the current entaglement in Central Africa. In the intervention in Libya, other countries for the first time in NATO history bore the brunt of the cost and manpower.

    During the Cold War we propped up leaders we liked in Latin America to boost US interests and investments. In that case, the US was benefitting itself at th eexpense of local people in many cases. Let's hope we are through with propping up dictators too. (Though I fear we are not.)

    For other entaglements, the US still has troops in Japan, Germany, and Korea. It helps us be more influential, and keeps the demand for weapons high. At one point the US was set topull troops out of Japan and they asked the US to stay. At that point, we should ask for money.

    While I agree that the US should not be involved everywhere and that other countries should share in the costs and risk, the US spends more on their military than all other countries put together, and so is often the most ready to intervene. In addition, the big military contractors give a lot of money to politicians and PACS, and now don't even have to disclose it. It's worse than the oil industry.
    (more)
  • Mordeca... sue 2012/01/09 23:47:27
    Mordecai Jones
    Didn't I just answer this?
  • sue Mordeca... 2012/01/10 00:27:43
    sue
    +1
    I don't know why it shows up twice. I will try to delete the second one.
  • Mordeca... sue 2012/01/10 18:33:30
    Mordecai Jones
    Not an issue - I was just curious.
  • gheelam 2012/01/09 11:54:29
    gheelam
    +3
    You will want to check out Chatham House, formerly called the British Royal Society, the think tank of the English royalty. They think the U.S. should be the policeman of the world. They provide the brains; the U.S. provides the braun.
  • Mordeca... gheelam 2012/01/09 13:31:27
    Mordecai Jones
    Thank you for your comment. I can certainly see why other countries think the US should do the work while they reap the benefits. My question is "why should the US continue to put it's self on the firing line for a collection of countries that are just looking for a free ride?" I think it is time that the US tells the rest of the world that it is time for them to get off and walk.
  • gheelam Mordeca... 2012/01/09 19:48:30
    gheelam
    +2
    I do not think America calls the shots for itself anymore. We've already lost our sovereignty. The myth of a free America lives on in the older generations; it is only a chimera. We are not free; we do not control our government. Buying the myth, lemmings still march off to war. The war in Iraq was about Israel; Saddam Hussein was the only modern leader to lob off rockets at Israel; he had to go. Same with Ghaddafi; Lockerbie incident. Iran is next. Their Islamic government (big mouths) is asking for it; and they are going to get it. Syria is in with Iran; so they're in for it, too. That's my take. I've got more if you want it.
  • Mordeca... gheelam 2012/01/09 23:48:54
    Mordecai Jones
    I ask questions because I am interested in what the answers might be - so yes I am interested to read your "take".
  • XavierCintron 2011/10/16 11:11:01
  • Arizona1950 2010/08/02 05:39:19 (edited)
    Arizona1950
    +1
    I don't think I can answer your questions but this is how I lean as described by wikipedia and how I scored on a poll ...

    I believe in non-interventionism: the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.

    Non-intervention is similar to isolationism, however fundamentally different. While isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies.

    I would look for this in a person when seeking future candidates for election. I think this falls in line with the original thinking of our Founders and the Constitution.
  • Live Free Or Die 2010/07/29 18:13:43
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    My personal belief about it is that the military-industrial complex makes money from war and conflict, and they (along with others) lobby the Congress and so the people in charge do their bidding. There really is no interest except the almighty dollar. Paying for some of it at the taxpayers' expense is not a problem because a) people put up with it; b) the media would have most people believing it's necessary; c) the trillions the government spends is not real money; it's all borrowed and they don't care about that, not really.
  • Mordeca... Live Fr... 2010/07/29 19:25:40
    Mordecai Jones
    c) is a very valid point in my opinion.

    b) implies that the media dictates what you and others think - do you really believe that?

    a) There is no question that there is money to be made.

    My question was Why is the USA fighting other people's wars.

    a) we could make just as much money fighting our own wars - and gain the conquered territories in the process

    b) the media could hype the benefits of continuous wars of conquest just as easily.

    c) the cost of continuing wars of conquest is no greater than the cost of fighting other people's wars.

    So why is the USA fighting other people's wars?
  • Live Fr... Mordeca... 2010/07/30 03:38:45
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    Most of the people you talk to would probably tell you that we need to be in Afghanistan, that we should venture into Pakistan, that Iraq was the right thing to do, and that bombing Iran is a good solution, as well as N.Korea (although that one maybe less so). I do believe the media influences public opinion. I don't believe it dictates it though.
  • Mordeca... Live Fr... 2010/07/31 00:52:54
    Mordecai Jones
    +1
    I agree that most people would respond as you say. I also agree that the media does influence but not dictate pubic opinion.

    And thus my question of "Why".
  • Live Fr... Mordeca... 2010/07/31 04:23:24
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    There is a lot to be gained by it by someone or it wouldn't be going down the way it is. Combine every answer on here and you have your answer I think.
  • gheelam Mordeca... 2012/01/09 19:57:14
    gheelam
    +2
    Wars are normally fought to gain something; territory or resources. But not the U.S.'s wars. In Afghanistan, we fought, the Chinese obtained the oil leases I was told. If we're gonna go to war, we ought to get something out of it. The situation we've got here is the corporate interests use American governmental authority and finances for aggrandizement. They prop up dictatorships with big money. They try to buy their way around the globe, as they did in Pakistan. It's stupid.
    Now Rick Perry wants to go back into Iraq. What do you think of that. Iraq is a chronically unstable land because it was never a nation. Western imperialists created Iraq. It's unnatural, a land that's frought with instability. Perry wants us to grind around in there so that some company can make so more off government contracts, maybe Halliburton again, and the other government contractors.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 22 Next » Last »

About Me

Mordecai Jones

Mordecai Jones

Refugio, TX, US

2009/08/06 02:19:03

Pushing for action. Right here - right now!

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics