I've got a guess.
Remember this when they tell us we can't afford some social program and don't want a tax increase. Because somehow, magically, we ALWAYS have enough money for war. Always. It is never even part of the discussion.
To a man with a drone fleet, every problem is a wedding convoy mistakenly identified as an insurgent training mission, slaughterable wholesale with only civilians killed, to be covered up by having all documents, communications and data stamped CLASSIFIED to ensure any whistleblowing will be punished and no one held accountable for war crimes.
I guess we should have spent $3 trillion instead of just $2 trillion.
From an Economic point of view, the value of this, and the generation of debt from this, means the money doesn't exist unless we value it. If we value it, then we generate the debt for it, which means it suddenly exists.
So yeah, when people say "why don't we spend this money on XYZ instead of war," it usually comes down to that the money simply doesn't exist until we decide to create the debt for it.
And of course, the debt is often not just to the American people, but also in the global realm, so you could see how there might be more value to War in the middle east than educating the american people, as it's easier to find nations to buy the debt for War.
Jeez, haven't we already done enough f**king damage over there????
It's saddening, maddening, and truly fucked up. Some portion is the fault of the USA. I don't see how more interference from us is going to make it better, though.
Did we make it better in Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan?
Sometimes I understand how people hope for a world-ending rapture that will end all the pain and bullshit.
These guys don't think they're rich enough. On the plus side, once we're all non-paid slaves they'll be satisfied.
Some portion is the fault of the USA.
I'd put that portion at about 99.99 percent.
I hope some reporter had the balls to ask why we're criticizing Russia for injecting money and military equipment into East Ukraine on the very same day we're talking about injecting more money and more equipment into Iraq.
Obama wants to support al Maliki's government against ISIS, possibly through airstrikes. The Iranians have also sent troops to support al Maliki's government. We nearly went to war with Iran during Obama's presidency, and at best they're still adversarial toward us. ISIS, the group we might bomb, is also fighting against Assad's regime in Syria. We nearly went to war with that regime last Fall. And for that matter, al Maliki's regime has been pretty adversarial with us over the years.
Basically, no matter who we bomb over there, we'll be helping two of our enemies. The only winning play is to stay the hell out of it.
It's like forest fires.
For a long time we tried to prevent every forest fire. Underbrush grew unchecked and unnaturally. When a fire inevitably happened they were catastrophic. America has a presence in the middle east because, if not, they would destroy themselves and in the process cut off supply to some vital resources
The constant civil war in the middle ease is a result of geographical issues, mismanagement for years, a purposeful and designed disruption of their traditional borders, and a power vacuum that is a result of a lack of competent leadership.
When we are in favor of their revolution we call it arab spring, when we fear a disruption of our self entitled resources or an election is near we send in air strikes.
The groups we hate we call terrorists, the groups we like we call freedom fighters or revolutionarys.
We keep fighting the same war over and over again.
In the end the National Debt will probably never effect me personally.
This isn't news anymore it's policy.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.