Why Is America At War - Most of the time

My Recent Posts

This is a comment made on my earlier article - pasted it on my Facebook page, someone suggested I make it an article of it on WB.  Nothing new here that everybody doesn't already know - but, maybe it just needs to be said:


"How come all the other countries around the world spend so much less money and Russia and China never attack them? Don't give me Ukraine, the people protested and wanted to be apart of Russia, there was a vote, democracy won. Russia didn't take anything, it was handed to them by the people. It was us and the rest of the world who turned it into a war. This is what we do, we start wars to justify our military. So that we can spend lots of money that goes right into the pockets of a hand full of rich people. That's how it works, and its shameful, disgusting. If CNN did their job, we would all know about it without a doubt. Nobody should die so that others can make lots of money, but that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS."


Louis E Weeks Added Mar 4, 2017 - 11:29am
Well many reasons, but let's just point out one and if you need more you can ask and I will gladly expand.
America spends a lot of money and military power patrolling and defending trade routes for trade.  This makes world trade possible and offers even the lowest American citizen access to cheap stuff they want like televisions and cellphones.  If Trade routes were not defended, there would be less trade and more expensive stuff.
Now some who favor isolationist Governments believe that is a good thing, and maybe it is, all I can do is address the way things are now and the impact it has.  I do feel it is not fair we cover most of the cost of trade route defense and everyone else benefits too, but those other Nations are too lazy and disconnected to do it anyway so if not America, who?
Stone-Eater Added Mar 4, 2017 - 11:34am
Right on.
Stone-Eater Added Mar 4, 2017 - 11:39am
If Trade routes were not defended, there would be less trade and more expensive stuff.
Not sure if this justifies all the bases and the new nuclear buildup in Eastern Europe...
...buy anyway, Trump wants exactly that - isolate the US more. Buy American. Produce American. I must confess, I like the guy a lot more than 0bama. he seems practical. But your pissoff media wants to destroy him. Russian connections here and there while the 0bama administration did the same.
I hope Trump gets that biased mass media down to where it belongs, and I hope he can do what he promised at his speech to Congress. even when it's halfway only, it would be something.
Except Keystone....from what I heard it's a danger for the environment, farmers are taken their land etc. That true ?
George N Romey Added Mar 4, 2017 - 11:47am
SEF our citizens are too damn lazy to inform and understand what is going on.  Trump has been thrown into the swamp and he now has a venomous snake biting into his arm and an alligator clamped down on his leg.  His death is surely impending.  I think some of his cabinet picks are part of the swamp creatures, like Wilbur Ross and Steve Munchin.
Maybe by 2019 when the BOL says we have a 4% unemployment rate while the real rate is 25% or more Americans might dust off their pitchforks and start to stick them in the ass of some pompous, fat, overfed and overwined politicians. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 4, 2017 - 12:30pm
Trump and Conservatives do not desire isolation, only "fair" trade.  The deals we have entered into has hurt America, especially as we follow those rules and others do not like China and their currency manipulation.
Trade was just one reason for the military expense, there are others, like how America stopped Germany in WW2 and how we liberated Kuwait from occupation from Iraq.  It was not like the Swiss was ever going to help anyone but themselves, lol.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 4, 2017 - 12:35pm
Louis E Weeks  - 14 years I spent in the Navy, not one single bullet was fired defending any trade route - try again.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 4, 2017 - 12:44pm
Thanks SEF and MJ - Even though we know it to be true, I guess it still needs to be said.  I remember Vietnam, everybody was saying it was a war for profit but, I didn't understand what they were saying.  Then I joined the Navy and it became clear quickly.  Everything costs a LOT of money.  Everything is cheap and brakes and has to always be fixed and maintained, and it's expensive.  Always expensive.  Because civilian contractors make lots of money.   
mark henry smith Added Mar 4, 2017 - 2:38pm
MPP, I had to log on to like your article, so I just wanted to add, we are like all people on this planet trying to get a head, and we have resources at our disposal that none other have. We get one war-monger president after another for a good reason. Yeah, right on. Business.
Louis is right that people in the Ukraine voted to side with Russia, but failed to understand that the Soviets had mass migrated Russians into the Ukraine to keep a lid on things. Ukrainians didn't vote to be allied with Russia. They voted to fight. And I loved your comment on Stone's piece about it is not what we put in our mouths that defiles us, but what we put out. Thanks. 
Dino Manalis Added Mar 4, 2017 - 2:49pm
That's not the way it used to be.  After 9/11, wars and terrorism have been constant.  The demise of Saddam Hussein ; Hosni Mubarak; and Muamar Gaddafi has made things worse.  Stability has historically been the centerpiece of U.S.-Arab relations, we have to return to it.  Peace and stability would be better for the world economy and bolster consumer and business confidence and spending.
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 4, 2017 - 11:50pm
Louis E Weeks  - 14 years I spent in the Navy, not one single bullet was fired defending any trade route - try again.
You can't be that naïve, we patrol those routs so we don't have to fire shots.  But you may want to Google the Maersk Alabama hijacking to see how wrong you are about the Navy responding to attacks on ships on trade routes.
Facts, not emotions Minister.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 5, 2017 - 1:02am
DUHmerica: War for fun and profit since 1776.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 5, 2017 - 1:05am
I don't really care what the reasons are. Its clear DUHmerica is the premier warmongering terrorist regime threatening the planet and as such needs to be put down like the rabid dog it is. Full stop.
Jeff Jackson Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:15am
America is the world's policeman, for good or ill. We keep trying to get others to help, but they don't want to. As stated, many of the streams of products and resources are clear because we patrol them, and again, we would like some people to help us, but they just won't. It is a shame that American die in battles fought so that others could be free, and then they throw that freedom away, because when freedom is given, like all things given to someone for free, they have no regard for it.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:40am
Mark H. Smith - "Voters in the Crimea region of Ukraine voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to secede from their country and join Russia, in a major victory for Moscow that followed days of international condemnation that the referendum itself was illegitimate."  http://time.com/26537/crimea-ukraine-russia-referendum-results/
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:40am
Dino - Yes, it has gotten worse and we're spending more money on it, and that's the way they want it. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:47am
"Maersk Alabama hijacking"  That happened recently. Never happened the 14 years I was in the Navy - 77 to 92.  Can you come up with more examples.  That happened because that of the world was effected by terrorism.  You do a little bit of research.  Terrorism is a creation of the United States.  You can't have a big giant expensive military if the world is full of peace, no one would stand for it.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:49am
Jeffrey - Spending all this money on our military is not sustainable.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 8:58am
The Other Side - "Uh, I'd be remiss if I didn't point this out, even though it seems obvious to any perspicacious individual. Is it not the liberal left, the CNN, CNBC, Rachel Mad Cow, et al, who are doing the saber rattling and trying to instigate hate against Russia?"
You'd think people would have figured this out.  It's a game of good guy, bad guy, they've been playing it for for some time.  The Republicans and the Democrats are apart of the same party, the war party.  Owned and controlled by a handful of the richest men in the world.  
I just got a Republican/Conservative newsletter talking about Trump and how he and his company is all involved with the Russians.  
One might be for abortion and the other against it, but they always agree on war and conflict.  Though the Democrats/liberals will always regret it, they will always sign off on it.  Every Time.  
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 9:00am
Jeff Jackson - Your delusion is such a wonderful dream, I wouldn't want to disturb your sleep.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:01am
Mr. Weeks,
80℅ of the Nazis' Wehmacht was destroyed on the Eastern Front where not a single non-Soviet Allied soldier set foot and Iraq under Saddam was a Western Proxy until the Sanctimonious Western Media found out after which of course he became Enemy Number 1
Bill Kamps Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:04am
MPP, the US far exceeds what is necessary to keep safe.  We spend more on defense than the next ten countries, eight of which are allies.   We spend 10x what the Russians spend, and Europe spends another  3-4x what the Russians spend, and we still claim it is not enough and that the Russians are a threat to us. 
As a comparison, Russia spends about 8x what Mexico spends on defense, would Russia claim that Mexico is a threat to them ? what nonsense. 
Im not saying we shouldnt spend a lot, but we could spend about 25% less, and be just as safe. 
Trade routes are not why we meddled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt, none of which were sitting on vital trade routes. 
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:10am
Iraq and Libya did start a process to trade oil in € and Gold based Dinars respectively though 
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:10am
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:13am
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan - You got it right.  We create those evil dictators and then we take em out.  We created terrorism, and now we're taking it out.  When this evil enemy is taken down, a new one is already in the works to takes its place.  
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:19am
Bill Kamps - If we just policed trade routes, all the other countries in the world could moth ball their ships and save a bunch and we could our selves save Trillions of dollars.  But anybody with any common sense would know that this is just a talking point to propagandize the people to support a BIG WASTE OF MONEY. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 10:24am

Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan  - Iraq and Libya did start a process to trade oil in € and Gold based Dinars respectively though..exclusively 
Yep, you got that right. 
That new world order everyone is talking about is actually the Rothschild banking system having control in every country in the world.  It used to have Russia, but Russia is backing out and that's why we're talking war with Russia 

George N Romey Added Mar 5, 2017 - 12:04pm
Simple, money and the need to protect the value of the US dollar.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 12:30pm
George - Yep, exactly. 
Patrick Writes Added Mar 5, 2017 - 7:14pm
But I thought we need to support troops. So sending them needlessly into harm's way should be supported too. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 9:52pm
Patrick, that statement makes no sense.  Think for a moment if you were a soldier.  Would you want to be needlessly sent into harms.  That's not supporting the troops, that's sending them into harms way needlessly.  
Patrick Writes Added Mar 5, 2017 - 11:38pm
I was making a joke. Of course, if you care about the troops you'd NOT want to needlessly send them into harm's way. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 11:40pm
Patrick - A joke - that makes sense, it is a joke.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 5, 2017 - 11:42pm
MJ - A person is more willing to fight to protect their family and neighbors.   
Patrick Writes Added Mar 6, 2017 - 12:26am
I was just saying this right wing 'support the troops' stuff can be counterproductive. If you know people who've gone into the military, who fought in the Iraq War, you'd agree that staying out of useless wars can be the best thing for the troops. 
The Hippies of the 60's had it right (in the case). Vietnam was a useless war that the U.S. should have gotten out of, and eventually lost.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 6, 2017 - 2:19am
Patrick - I honestly believed we learned a lesson from Vietnam, never thought it would happen again. Apparently the neocon warmongers simply regrouped. They say we lost the war because of the liberal media, so they set off to change the rules and bought up all the media.  Now the media is pro-war, now the people are pro war.  Except for the interwebs, we would have burnt this world down by now.  
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 6, 2017 - 8:34am
MPP, you asked a question, I offered a logical and fact based reply, you dodged and made claims that because you never saw combat while in the navy then there must not be any need for patrolling those trade routes, I countered with an example so you again went to the well that because you never saw combat in 14 years that means no patrolling was needed....... 
Have you ever heard of the word deterrent?  Of course you never saw combat, because who is stupid enough to attack the American Navy?  There is no combat because we are patrolling those trade routes, the patrolling is doing exactly what it is designed to do, to keep those trade routes open and free.  
It is like the business who pays off duty cops to hang out in uniform on busy nights.  The business does this as a deterrent to crime in the business during those times, the point it works and does reduce crime is the point, so you are saying that because the deterrence works we no longer need the deterrence?
I completely agree America does sometimes meddle where it should not, we are not perfect, no human beings are perfect, but we do get a lot right too.
Kaushik Venkatasubramaniyan, 
America was shipping tons of supplies to Europe long before we entered the war, without America Europe would have fallen to Germany long before that, and if Europe had fallen early, that means more troops and supplies to then shift to fight the Russians.  Russia was nearly beaten even with Germany divided, if they had to face the full force of Germany Russia would have fallen easily.
America is the only reason Germany was stopped.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 6, 2017 - 9:14am
Louis - I believe in a strong defense, but it has literally gone to far.  Russia, China, Canada, I've even seen a French Destroyer.  They all have their ships out there. But we are the ones who have bases all over the world. "the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad" per google.  That's crazy, we don't need all that.  We're an empire, we don't need to be an empire.  It does not benefit the American people when other countries are beating us in education and we're beating them in homelessness. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 6, 2017 - 10:02am
But what is the basis of claiming we have gone too far, your own claim that because you never personally faced combat in 14 years means no patrols are needed is proof you are not being completely honest in the discussion.  I gave you an example of the Navy responding to attacks on shipping and you dismissed it without addressing that reality that the few attacks we do see are with the Navy and other Countries patrolling, so what will happen if we suddenly stop?
It seems logical that if we some examples of piracy now with patrolling, it will go way up once we eliminate all patrolling.  I try to stick with logic, not wallow in emotion based thinking.
I get it, you would like to see that money spent in other ways and I get it man, I even agree with you to a great deal, but we have to understand that there are good reasons for most of what we do.
Consider most of our bases in Europe was based on Germany having to be put down twice.  Germany could not behave itself so America had to occupy Europe and use force to impose peace.  Most of Europe today owes their prosperity and freedom to America.  so what was cheaper for America?  Putting into place long term prevention in Europe or leaving and having to come back again in a few years for the next world war?
Sometimes you have to take a longer look at things, there is more going on that just today and what me and you want.
But that said the reasons for our bases in Europe are no longer the same, I am certainly supportive of reducing our troops in most Nations and letting them start to defend themselves.  The reason so many of those European Countries can afford things like socialized healthcare is because they do not pay for their National defense.  America covers that cost for them.
So I am certainly friendly to reductions, but I do not see "everything" we do as bad or evil needing to be stopped either.
Shane Laing Added Mar 6, 2017 - 11:48am
Kaushik  "America is the only reason Germany was stopped." I think the millions of Russians who died would tend to disagree considering more of them died. Over 10 million Russian military alone, that's more than the rest of the allies put together. 416k USA, 326k UK  (Russian lost over a million at Stalingrad alone) puts it in perspective I think.  The Russian military had vastly superior numbers and would have beaten Germany anyway it would have taken longer no doubt but they would have won. 
Louis E Weeks Added Mar 6, 2017 - 11:55am
Dying a lot is not a sign of good military strength, Germany trounced Russia everywhere there was heated battle, the idea Russia would have eventually won because they had a lot more people to- toss into the grinder does not seem to be reasonable consider all that came before.
Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  There is no reason to believe that Russia would have suddenly seen positive results from doing the same things that always ended in failure before.
All the fighting and the only thing that changed was America joining in, this if fact, before that America was pouring hundreds of tons of aid in metals, food and ammunition/weapons so even before we officially entered the fight, we were making it possible for Europe to hold on.
This is just simple fact.
Shane Laing Added Mar 6, 2017 - 12:27pm
Stalingrad was a heated battle and the germans lost that. Kursk the biggest tank battle in history, they lost that one as well, Battle of Dnieper River need I go on. The fact that did have more to throw into the meat grinder is the reason they would have won and at the end of the war had vastly more men and material in Germany than the allies.  I certainly agree that  under lend lease, America did great things in supplying food and arms to the UK from Sept 1940 though not officially until Mar 1941, we would not have survived without it. We finally finished paying for it in Dec 2006.
Bill Kamps Added Mar 7, 2017 - 12:12pm
Louis, actually Europe spends quite a lot on defense.  What  they spend it on I have no idea.  The UK, Germany and France  alone outspend Russia by 3x, add in the other countries and why cant they defend themselves, with the exception of a nuclear deterrent ?  Russia has to spend money on more than Europe, and still Europe doesnt have enough tanks, planes and troops to defend  themselves ?  What are the spending the money on ? fancy meals and hotels ?
Yes I agree we need a deterrent, the question is how much is enough.  Could we spend 10-15% less, and still be just as safe ? I think so, but instead Trump wants to spend 10-15% MORE.   Cant we "get by" with 10-11 air craft carriers, since no other country has more than one ? cant we get by with 9-10 ballistic missile subs, since no sub has ever fired a missile ?  do we need new F-35s since no one has shot down the existing fighters we have ?   Deterrent does not always means having massively more capability than everyone else combined.
I agree, the troops were in Europe for good historical reasons after WWII, but those reasons have largely changed.  We cant afford to spend $600-700 billion each year, while we run up huge deficits.
Shane Laing Added Mar 7, 2017 - 1:52pm
Bill/Louis. In the UK we spend a lot but get jack all for the money.  As usual the government has the preferred bidders so pays an arm and a leg for rubbish equipment.  An example, the SA80 rifle. When first brought out it was to replace the 7.62 SLR which was deemed not suitable for CQB. So an English company came up with the SA80. In the early 80's the SAS trialled it and said it was rubbish. Nonetheless because it was made in Britain and would protect British jobs it didn't matter that it didn't work properly fell apart, a bitch to clean (to clean it you have to put it in a shower and I'm not joking).  When suggested that we buy the M16 which is what the SAS use the army was told no. Same with the early warning planes over £600 million was wasted on development before it was scrapped and the UK bought AWACs which is what was requested in the first place. Out navy doesn't have 1 aircraft carrier, the government scrapped the last one before the new one is built and guess what they don't have the planes to go on it. The government is reducing troop numbers all the time now we no longer officially have an Army its now way less than 100K men. They are getting rid of regulars and are trying to recruit part time soldiers who they can send off to war at a moments notice. Instead of buying from other countries off the shelf the MOD is forced to use the preferred bidders system and its a joke. Germany is very loathe to send its troops abroad due to its history. France is only a part of NATO in time of war.  They sent troops to Gulf War one but Stormin Norman couldn't use them due to the fact that they only obey commands from the French Government, they would not accept an American general being in command of their troops. Troops from Belgium and Holland only work Monday to Friday.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 8, 2017 - 5:46am
Louis - I can't argue standards with you.  We all have our standards.  According to my standards we spend far too much on defense, we don't need  800 military bases in more than 70 different countries. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 8, 2017 - 6:27am
Shane - I think I mentioned this in an earlier comment, everything cost a lot and everything breaks and has to be fixed.  On one ship I was on the ammo elevator caught on fire every time we went out to sea, think about that. 
wsucram15 Added Mar 8, 2017 - 12:14pm
MPP..Im glad you took back you old name btw. I like this so much better.
Autumn is going to stay with the page, but I also write on another page Niume.  So come on there, who knows you might get paid on there. 
Also America is at war and also rebuilding its military infrastructure and/or new weapons for the contracts and this is one area I commended Trump.   However, military contracts and defense is high employment, if not for that, our unemployment would be much higher than it is in younger people.  Which already has a higher unemployment rate.  There is a new book out on that I recently looked through.  Interesting stuff.  I Expect an aggressive action/war at some point, aside from the current geo political cyber war.  It seems EVERYONE in DC is trying to keep people focused on anything (the shiny coin) that is far from the actual agenda.  Its weird.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 8, 2017 - 2:41pm
Thanks wsucram15 - I've been told by others that they liked minister peaceful poet better, I think I'll hang onto it.  I looked at Niume.  You might get a dollar or two, but I'm kinda stretched thin.  I'm glad Autumn decided stay.  This her thing obviously.  We'll see how it goes.
I believe that on September 11, 2017, we're going to start seeing some change.  I think what is going on now is that the world is being prepared for that change.  And I hope I'm right, otherwise, this world is going to hell.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 9, 2017 - 2:05am
On one ship I was on the ammo elevator caught on fire every time we went out to sea, think about that. 
No thinking required, I'd never be so foolish to put myself in that position much less re-up.  
Shane Laing Added Mar 9, 2017 - 2:57am
MPP. My point was we in the UK spend a lot but we don't get the equipment. If our government either bought form other countries or even built under licence we would have better equipment and not have to continually lesson our fighting ability. The government is pushing through a £100 billion upgrade for trident, I know its not on the scale of the US but we are contributing more than most to defend the free world.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 9, 2017 - 3:28am
So Jeffry, what you're saying is, you would not volunteer to serve in the military or if you did, you would rather serve brig time than sea time. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 9, 2017 - 3:29am
Free world? Really? In a free world the will of the British voter would already have been acted upon instead of all the machinations to subvert Brexit. Just one example. Perhaps its time for guillotines outside the House of Lords? 
There is no freedom when the government corporate complex of fascists won't honor their part of the bargain. 
Even more elementally there is no freedom when you can't say no and it means something. 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Mar 9, 2017 - 3:29am
Shane, The UK does offer more support than anyone else. 
Shane Laing Added Mar 9, 2017 - 3:37am
Quite right Jeffry we voted for Brexit. The whole thing mirrors the US presidential race. The losers just cant accept they lost and are creating merry hell. House of Lords is unelected and they should be. These old duffers claim £300 per day. One of them was caught signing in and signing out just to get the cash.
mark henry smith Added Mar 9, 2017 - 1:04pm
What we are seeing in the world is strategies to change how we interact without a clear vision of how those changes will affect outcomes. The problem with Brexit, with travel bans, with walls, with so much that we're seeing now, war on terror, is that we don't know what the end result will be, the reason for doing it. We're told what the results will be by the people who create the strategy, but invariably they're wrong.
The reasons are simple. The problems were created not by bad intentions, but by good intentions, and the programs worked well initially, such as recognizing that it was Ronald Reagan who pushed for the right of illegals to come to America to work. Such as the desire of European countries to form a trade bloc to compete with China and North America. Any economist could have told the Europeans that the strong countries would come to dominate the weak, and that the weak would use their position within the trade group to keep from reforming their economies.
But we are not going to hell. There is no such thing except on a personal level. Hell is what you make of it.   
George N Romey Added Mar 9, 2017 - 2:17pm
MPP wars are no longer about winning or losing. Its about continuous conflicts that never go to defcon 5 but nonetheless are great for defense companies and contractors.  The Middle East is perfect for this kind of activity.  And with no longer a draft its only the children of the poor and downtrodden that are sacrificed.

Recent Articles by Writers Minister Peaceful Poet follows.