Why has America been at war for 16 years?

[Will Wiley]

Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.

The lack of curiousity on the part of the American people, the media, and Congress about the purpose of these wars, which have been proven to be based entirely on lies, is extraordinary. What explains this conspiracy of silence, this amazing disinterest in the squandering of money and lives?

Is there something wrong somewhere?

America spends all this money on wars but says it can't provide services for it's citizens.

Yet all we see is is nonsense and distractions about Russiagate and other nonsense

 

[Opoponax]

Afghanistan was poorly executed from the get-go. However, due to the forces at work there, it is the world's problem and will be ongoing.

Iraq, as we all know, was a fucking lie. The problem is, The U.S. can't now abandon it. We're stuck with it.

It's not that Americans aren't curious about it. It's like being curious about a foot that got sawed off 16 years ago. You know what happened, but now you just have to live with it. The same applies to the effort by conservatives to eliminate healthcare for as many of us as possible. Trillions spent on useless wars, but we can't possibly afford to spend a fraction of that on our citizens. It's a daily shitfest with no end in sight.

 

[untermensche]

It continues because the people continuing it are paying no price for doing so.

No monetary price.

No loss of children or children of associates.

No political price.

The US has no functioning democracy.

It has TV commercial elections and high priced lobbyists in between elections.

No democracy. No will of the people shaping anything.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.

The lack of curiousity on the part of the American people, the media, and Congress about the purpose of these wars, which have been proven to be based entirely on lies, is extraordinary. What explains this conspiracy of silence, this amazing disinterest in the squandering of money and lives?

Is there something wrong somewhere?

America spends all this money on wars but says it can't provide services for it's citizens.

Yet all we see is is nonsense and distractions about Russiagate and other nonsense

The US is the 20th and 21st Century Warlord attempting to set up proxy dictatorships where it has caused havoc and destruction in the Middle East. Should the US have beaten another country doing this it would be running war trials for genocide.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Afghanistan was poorly executed from the get-go. However, due to the forces at work there, it is the world's problem and will be ongoing.

Iraq, as we all know, was a fucking lie. The problem is, The U.S. can't now abandon it. We're stuck with it.

It's not that Americans aren't curious about it. It's like being curious about a foot that got sawed off 16 years ago. You know what happened, but now you just have to live with it. The same applies to the effort by conservatives to eliminate healthcare for as many of us as possible. Trillions spent on useless wars, but we can't possibly afford to spend a fraction of that on our citizens. It's a daily shitfest with no end in sight.

Afghanistan is just one of the problems made worse by the US. Iraq wasn't the only lie.

The US didn't have to invade Iraq because apart from a few vague reports it had nothing. If another country had done then the US would have declared the acts as war crimes. It would also call for war reparations.

The US can meet with Russia and arrange peace talks in Syria instead of propping up the rebels with arms and money. As it found out previously it also inadvertently or otherwise channelled money to Jihadists in that region.

 

[Keith&Co.]

America spends all this money on wars but says it can't provide services for it's its citizens.

Yet all we see is is nonsense and distractions about Russiagate and other nonsense

Bit of confusion, there.
It's the people in charge that are deciding where we go to war, and how many resources to commit when we're there, what the goals are, same as they're deciding how much to spend on services for our citizens. So if Russia is manipulating or trying to manipulate who becomes the people in charge, they are or could be having an impact on who gets to decide where we go to war and what we do when we're there.

So it's not really a distraction or nonsense, it's pretty central to the topic you're bitching about, at least until we suss out the full extent of the problem, and do something to prevent it from happening in the future.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Shareholders have rights and therefore defence contractors have a fiduciary duty maintain profit margins and hit revenue targets. If the executives of these companies failed in their roles to lobby politicians to continue to drop bombs and shoot bullets, they would place themselves at risk of a lawsuit for costing their investors money.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Shareholders have rights and therefore defence contractors have a fiduciary duty maintain profit margins and hit revenue targets. If the executives of these companies failed in their roles to lobby politicians to continue to drop bombs and shoot bullets, they would place themselves at risk of a lawsuit for costing their investors money.

Well, they don't have to actually SHOOT the bullets.
THey have to buy the bullets. Lots of bullets.
Admittedly, if they're shooting them, it's easier to justify restocking, but we can also just stamp shelf life dates on the bullets.

My company supports the Trident Missile program. We definitely do NOT want them shooting those missiles. But we do keep upgrading the systems to take advantage of the latest technological advances. And many parts of the current weapon system have been out there since 1980! Would you drive a CAR that had been on the road since 1980?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Since it's almost 4th of July, I'll take a contrary view! It's unquestionable that we live in the most peaceful time in modern history. There are fewer wars, fewer civilian deaths, fewer military deaths, fewer countries being invaded, and etc. Plus Wil's guy, Trump was just elected. Obviously Trump is far less blood thirsty than Obama!

 

[laughing dog]

Only 685 years more to go before we break the record.

 

[J842P]

Iraq, as we all know, was a fucking lie. The problem is, The U.S. can't now abandon it. We're stuck with it.

Sure we can.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Iraq, as we all know, was a fucking lie. The problem is, The U.S. can't now abandon it. We're stuck with it.

Sure we can.

Jesus Christ, Trumpster can't abandon Joe and Mika! How the hell would he even consider leaving Iraq?

 

[J842P]

Sure we can.

Jesus Christ, Trumpster can't abandon Joe and Mika! How the hell would he even consider leaving Iraq?

Listen Harry, I know you are obsessed with Trump. But I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Whether or not it is likely that Trump would "consider leaving Iraq" is not really relevant to the question of whether or not we *can* leave Iraq.

I'll also point out, we technically "withdrew" from Iraq in 2011. If you ignore a giant embassy/compound/consulate of 10,000s of contractors and probably thousands of "private military contractors" i.e. mercenaries.

 

[bilby]

Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?

For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.

Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.

The lack of curiousity on the part of the American people, the media, and Congress about the purpose of these wars, which have been proven to be based entirely on lies, is extraordinary. What explains this conspiracy of silence, this amazing disinterest in the squandering of money and lives?

Is there something wrong somewhere?

America spends all this money on wars but says it can't provide services for it's citizens.

Yet all we see is is nonsense and distractions about Russiagate and other nonsense

America is at war in the Middle East and North Africa because the State Department believe that this is the most effective way to keep the price of oil low, and as a result, keep the US economy strong.

Perhaps they are wrong; But it seems likely that they are right - if the US withdrew from the Middle East theatre, the price of oil would likely go through the roof, and that would hurt the US.

16 years is nothing - the US has been at war in Korea since 1950. Right now that war has been ongoing for 67 years and ten days.

America gains a lot from her military; She has massive influence worldwide due to her ability and demonstrated willingness to go to war if things don't go her way. Americas allies also benefit from the stability that the US military brings to their territories - Some are merely able to spend less on their own armed forces, secure in the knowledge that the US has a treaty obligation to defend them, rendering the need for such defence less likely; Others, such as Israel, would struggle to even exist without US military support.

It is arguable that the US public might be better off if America took a more isolationist stance, and spent less on the military; But it is far from certain that that is the case, as you, and the author of your link, appear to assume.

The US government tends to spend too little for the optimum economic outcomes - as do most right-wing governments. They get away with this by spending the money that a sane economic policy would direct to domestic infrastructure on domestic military bases and personnel - thereby pouring money into what would otherwise be impoverished parts of their country. This 'pork barreling' is derided as 'waste', but in fact it is just an inefficient way to get the government to do its job of taking some of the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor.

If US military spending were reduced, and the money spent on schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc. etc., then doubtless that would improve the people's position; But if instead the money was spent on tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy, the net effect would be disastrous - and while I am not a betting man, I would certainly put my money on the tax cuts getting precedence over infrastructure spending, in such a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?




Is there something wrong somewhere?

America spends all this money on wars but says it can't provide services for it's citizens.

Yet all we see is is nonsense and distractions about Russiagate and other nonsense

America is at war in the Middle East and North Africa because the State Department believe that this is the most effective way to keep the price of oil low, and as a result, keep the US economy strong.

Perhaps they are wrong; But it seems likely that they are right - if the US withdrew from the Middle East theatre, the price of oil would likely go through the roof, and that would hurt the US.

16 years is nothing - the US has been at war in Korea since 1950. Right now that war has been ongoing for 67 years and ten days.

America gains a lot from her military; She has massive influence worldwide due to her ability and demonstrated willingness to go to war if things don't go her way. Americas allies also benefit from the stability that the US military brings to their territories - Some are merely able to spend less on their own armed forces, secure in the knowledge that the US has a treaty obligation to defend them, rendering the need for such defence less likely; Others, such as Israel, would struggle to even exist without US military support.

It is arguable that the US public might be better off if America took a more isolationist stance, and spent less on the military; But it is far from certain that that is the case, as you, and the author of your link, appear to assume.

The US government tends to spend too little for the optimum economic outcomes - as do most right-wing governments. They get away with this by spending the money that a sane economic policy would direct to domestic infrastructure on domestic military bases and personnel - thereby pouring money into what would otherwise be impoverished parts of their country. This 'pork barreling' is derided as 'waste', but in fact it is just an inefficient way to get the government to do its job of taking some of the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor.

If US military spending were reduced, and the money spent on schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc. etc., then doubtless that would improve the people's position; But if instead the money was spent on tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy, the net effect would be disastrous - and while I am not a betting man, I would certainly put my money on the tax cuts getting precedence over infrastructure spending, in such a hypothetical scenario.

Why would the price of oil go through the roof if we vacated the ME? They have to sell it to someone.

 

[untermensche]

Why would the price of oil go through the roof if we vacated the ME? They have to sell it to someone.

I don't think the US is controlling the price.

The US wants to control the oil itself.

Control where it is going, not take it to the US.

US corporations also want to profit from the extraction, refinement, storage and transport of the oil.

That requires protection that the US government provides free of charge.

 

[bilby]

America is at war in the Middle East and North Africa because the State Department believe that this is the most effective way to keep the price of oil low, and as a result, keep the US economy strong.

Perhaps they are wrong; But it seems likely that they are right - if the US withdrew from the Middle East theatre, the price of oil would likely go through the roof, and that would hurt the US.

16 years is nothing - the US has been at war in Korea since 1950. Right now that war has been ongoing for 67 years and ten days.

America gains a lot from her military; She has massive influence worldwide due to her ability and demonstrated willingness to go to war if things don't go her way. Americas allies also benefit from the stability that the US military brings to their territories - Some are merely able to spend less on their own armed forces, secure in the knowledge that the US has a treaty obligation to defend them, rendering the need for such defence less likely; Others, such as Israel, would struggle to even exist without US military support.

It is arguable that the US public might be better off if America took a more isolationist stance, and spent less on the military; But it is far from certain that that is the case, as you, and the author of your link, appear to assume.

The US government tends to spend too little for the optimum economic outcomes - as do most right-wing governments. They get away with this by spending the money that a sane economic policy would direct to domestic infrastructure on domestic military bases and personnel - thereby pouring money into what would otherwise be impoverished parts of their country. This 'pork barreling' is derided as 'waste', but in fact it is just an inefficient way to get the government to do its job of taking some of the money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor.

If US military spending were reduced, and the money spent on schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc. etc., then doubtless that would improve the people's position; But if instead the money was spent on tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy, the net effect would be disastrous - and while I am not a betting man, I would certainly put my money on the tax cuts getting precedence over infrastructure spending, in such a hypothetical scenario.

Why would the price of oil go through the roof if we vacated the ME? They have to sell it to someone.

No, they don't.

They could instead fight over it, and end up with no (or dramatically less) oil to sell; or no easy way to ship it to purchasers - for example if neighbouring countries cut pipelines or blockade sea lanes.

If Iran decided to stop Saudi tankers from passing through Hormuz, the world oil supply would be dramatically restricted, leading to high prices from which Iranian oil interests could profit. The US military presence prevents them from doing that; and just the risk that they might do it would be enough to push prices up, if the US went home.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Only 685 years more to go before we break the record.

16 Years is already bad enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would the price of oil go through the roof if we vacated the ME? They have to sell it to someone.

When the fundies got control of enough of the oil they would use the price to beat up the west. Oil wouldn't magically stay cheap in the US and go through the roof elsewhere.

 

[SimpleDon]

The House Appropriations committee voted in a bi-partisan vote to resend the blanket authorization that three administrations have depended on to continue the Middle Eastern wars. If this passes, and this is anything but certain, the administration will have to come to Congress every year justify the money to continue the wars.

From CNN, considered by some to be the main source of fake news, unlike the more reliable Fox and Friends or Breitbart News.

The measure leaves open the question of what authorization would replace the 2001 AUMF, setting up the prospect of adding a major debate about the US role in the fight against ISIS to what's already a packed congressional agenda with health care, tax reform, spending cuts and more.