Why only morons will buy into another US war

[KoKo]

Why only morons will buy into another US war

Published on Aug 7, 2014
The US' military-industrial complex is so huge that many now depend on war for profit. And as the US war with Afghanistan winds down, and its people not wanting to go back to Iraq, the US now faces a problem: it needs a war. So who should it go to war with? The marketing machines have started to turn once again, with politicians and the media spewing more lies and propaganda to sell America on a new war. Who will the lucky country be? The Resident discusses.

Follow The Resident at http://www.twitter.com/TheResident
Find RT America in your area: http://rt.com/where-to-watch/
Or watch us online: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/

[cheapdate]

1. There isn't any country I'd suggest we "should" go to war with

at the moment. I think we should, and almost certainly will, honor our security commitments with NATO and elsewhere. Russian expansion stops at NATO borders or else there could be war.

[another_liberal]

4. And if NATO continues to expand Eastward . . .

As it appears intent on doing, we will be certain to go to war. Right?

What a lovely future the World has in store for it if that sort of logic takes charge.

(sigh)

[zeemike]

8. That kind of logic has taken charge.

And is the cause of our economic and moral downward slide.

[swilton]

11. NATO should have been abolished in 1989

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2012/05/10/veterans-for-peace-calls-for-an-end-to-nato

Veterans for Peace works for the abolition of war, and while that process will take many steps, one that should be taken immediately is the dissolution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

NATO has always been a war-making institution lacking in accountability to the peoples of the nations it claims to represent. But NATO at least once claimed a defensive purpose that it neither claims nor represents any longer.

NATO has militarized the nations of Europe against the will of their people, now maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear European nations in blatant violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and is threatening Russia with missile base construction on its borders.

Having fought aggressive wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, NATO remains in Afghanistan, illegally, immorally, and to no coherent purpose. The people of the United States, other NATO nations, and Afghanistan itself, overwhelmingly favor an end to NATO's presence, while Presidents Obama and Karzai, against the will of their people, work to commit U.S. forces to at least 12.5 more years in Afghanistan.

NATO provides the United States with a pretense of global coalition and legality. Approximately half of the world's military spending is U.S., while adding the other NATO nations brings the total to three-quarters. The head of the Pentagon, Leon Panetta, recently testified in Congress that a war could be made legal by working through either the United Nations or NATO. While no written law supports that claim, it is a claim that has served its intended purpose. NATO also serves as a false legal shield, protecting the U.S. military from Congressional oversight.

The U.S. dominated NATO holds up the past year's war on Libya as a model for the future, with an eye on various potential victims, including Syria and Iran. In so doing, NATO serves as the armed enforcer of the exploitative agenda of the G-8, which has fled Chicago for the guarded compound at Camp David.

NATO's interests are neither democratically determined nor humanitarian in purpose. NATO does not bomb all nations guilty of humanitarian abuses. Nor does NATO's bombing alleviate human suffering, it adds to it. Saudi Arabia is not a target. Bahrain is not a target. Ben Ali and Mubarak were not targets. An analysis of NATO's real motivations reveals a desire to control the global flow of oil, to support dictators who have supported U.S./NATO wars, prisons and torture operations, to back Israel's expansionist agenda, and to surround and threaten the nation of Iran.

The killing and destruction engaged in by NATO in Libya was illegal, immoral, and counter-productive as is its aggression in Afghanistan. NATO’s wars have not brought democracy, peace, or human rights anywhere.

Libya is not a model for future NATO action. There is no model for future NATO action. NATO has lost its reason to exist if it ever had one. Veterans For Peace joins with our brothers and sisters in Europe, who are also rallying nonviolently against NATO, in calling for its elimination.

[cheapdate]

13. I don't agree that NATO should be disbanded.

The history of devastating war and conflict in Europe is a sufficient reason for maintaining NATO. The NATO alliance is powerful and it's power can be used well or badly. It can be used appropriately to ensure the stability and mutual defense of its member states, or it can be abused to force its will on weaker countries. Even so, NATO has a legitimate purpose in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

Russia will do as it will in Ukraine and perhaps in Belarus, but it stops at the NATO borders. The Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, and other member states are off limits.

[swilton]

14. NATO was conceived as a

Defensive alliance. Since the Clinton years, it has operated offensively and outside the mandate of the United Nations which through the Security Council is supposed to approve the use of military force.

Much of the populations in the states you mention in Eastern Europe long for the good old days when they had pensions and job security. The NATO alliance for them was tantamount to predatory capitalism. While their governments may be figleafs in support of the EU/NATO membership, the review from the populations is mixed.

The resources spent on NATO could have been better spent on rebuilding the USSR so that it could have (along with the US) safely dismantled its nuclear weapons which threaten the entire planet. The peace dividend from the fall of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact could also have been used to combat the planet's ecological collapse....a far greater threat than the boogey men/women in Russia or non-state actors/ terrorists.

[cheapdate]

15. I don't disagree that the world would be a far better place

without nuclear weapons and with all of the major powers using their wealth to protect the living earth. Personally, I'd like to see private ownership of property abolished, the military budget reduced by 90% or more, most commercial corporate charters revoked, and a new society established dedicated to living on the earth in harmony with living creatures.

But none of that is likely to happen soon. Nor is NATO going away soon. Nor are we time-traveling back to the collapse of the Soviet Union and safely dismantling its nuclear arsenal.

I'll gladly support a movement, or a party, or a candidate who will make the United States a stay-at-home country and will spend more on people than bombs. But the reality is what it is. My candidate in the last election, Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party, received 0.036% of the national vote -- that's three one-hundredths of one percent. That's a fact.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Not much light between what RT says and a lot of what DU'ers say about war and the MIC.

[another_liberal]

5. What exactly is there to disagree with?

These blanket dismissals of an independent point of view, without any semblance of a meaningful counter argument are getting tiresome.

[PatrynXX]

3. this coming from the military wing thats now RT

I'll take this with as few cents as possible

[another_liberal]

6. If one has nothing to say . . .

Why bother posting a reply at all?

[another_liberal]

7. Great video, KoKo!

This young woman is a fantastic spokesperson for national sanity. There are a few others, but we need many more.

[zeemike]

9. Now that is the damn truth.

Lots more.
But you can forget about the MSM...they are in the bag for the MIC.

[stonecutter357]

10. .

rt.

[swilton]

12. Marketing

in this case to sell a war, in other cases to promote consumerism (Coca Cola, soft drinks, candy, cigarettes, etc., etc.) works effectively because it appeals to emotions rather than intellect - people/societies are persuaded to act in ways that are counter-productive to their interests. Ideologies work in the same ways. Key to this process is that targets of the manipulation is its appeal to the subconscious - targeted populations don't realize that they are being manipulated.