How is the U.S. responsible for starting all of these wars around the world?

Question

I always thought that we were responding to a threat to innocent people or trying to enforce treaties that had been signed. Am I wrong or not?

Answer 1

I remember that back in college, in my poli sci classes, our prof told us that US foreign policy was a combination of idealism and political realism: The justification for many acts, including invasions and warfare, was more often than not idealistic (we fight for democracy, we protect the innocent, we protect international law and treaties, etc.), yet the actual motives were not idealistic, but were based on the country's interests.
A few historical examples:
1. The US encouraged the separation of Panama from Colombia at the turn of the century. Colombian govenment wasn't exactly forthcomming about the idea of building the Panama Canal, yet the new independent government of Panama gave the US a concession that had them running the Canal Zone until Carter was president, in the late 70s. Justification: We support the desire of the Panamenian people to be independent from those evil Columbians; Actual Reason: If we can build and control the canal, it's great for US business and we get tons of money.
2. The US, covertly, supports the military coup that finished Salvador Allende's presidency in Chile. Justification: He was a socialist, and socialism isn't democratic. the Chileans have a right to live in a democracy! Actual Reason: we're in the middle of the cold war, we already have Cuba, we can't afford for all these Latin American countries to turn commie. Result: Chile got saddled with a dictatorship that lasted until the 90s, and the US didn't mind that much, since it didn't go commie.
3. Irak... Justification: Sadam is a dictator who harbors terrorists and has WMD; he is a threat to democracy. Reason: could it be oil?
4. Cuba, bay of pigs... Justification: Castro's regime is communist. He is not democratic, and cubans need to be liberated. Reason: Cuba is 90 miles from the US, Castro expropriated US properties, Castro will not give the US preferential treatment in trade.
You can sell almost anything to almost anyone if it's coated with enough idealism.

Answer 2

Wars are planned by society's elite. And are funded through big private banks. Wars are big business for the defense industry. They start wars for monetary gains.

We (the inferior people) are told things to believe that the wars are necessary. The elite (the superior people) profit from wars knowing how gullible we (the inferior) are. Take Brand X's answer as an example of the types of people who by into lies and reasons for wars.

He is clueless as to the actual intent of the government with Iraq and Afaganistan. Little does he know that Pentagon documents show the US government's intent in Iraq was to split it up by creating civil war, and that the US government's intent was to create military bases to have a stronghold there in the middleeast.

Little does he know that troops, military equipment, weapons were in place and ready for an attack in Afaganistan all before the 9/11 attacks. Then it would be easy for Bush to blame it on Usama Bin Laden - even though the FBI admits that there is no hard evidence connecting Usama to the 9/11 attacks.

So to rebut Mr. Brand X's answer, none of these wars were justified.

And to answer Mystic's observance - it is called imperialism - and is bringing the US to an empire-like form.

Answer 3

diverse motives. some leaders fought their personal battles, which include Napoleon and Caesar. In u.s. lots of our Presidents have served contained in the military and fought with the enemy. the large style one reason is that the President is the chief of the country and if he went and lead a employer on the floor and changed into killed it may throw our complete command structure into chaos for no less than quite a few days, needed time if a substantial warfare changed into being fought. With at the moment's technologies, satellites, secret agent planes, and so on, the enemy could probably perceive our chief between the troops and could very much endanger all of their lives. The lack of life of any countries chief by ability of the enemy could also be of great propaganda value, no longer to point the crippling result on the morale of the country. the second one substantial reason is that international leaders now no longer concentration on being generals. the U. S. hasn't had a typical in workplace on account that Eisenhower. at the moment a frontrunner is anticipated to in easy words care about economic and social concerns, warfare is taken into consideration as something to be prevented by ability of the western powers, therefore politicians do not commonly spend a lot time reading military approach. The third reason is the media. even as something minor is going incorrect lower than a typical, human beings many times enable it to bypass, sparing their grievance. If a President went and lead from the front, each mishap no count number how small could be higher to the brilliant by ability of political combatants. The fourth reason is their workload. A noticeably powerful artwork force and cupboard could be had to p.c.. up the slack even as the President changed into off commanding the military in man or woman. In at the moment's western governments their are one of those vast quantity of valueless rituals and conferences that the President has to attend, plus their family participants household projects, it may take a really experienced and powerful chief to tug it off. So if the chief changed into to exercising great secrecy, be on the least a faithful pupil of military approach and heritage, besides as implement a media blackout on the on the spot information of the warfare, and be able to wrestle quicker or later and draft an authorities order the following nighttime, then convinced they could all precise take area contained in the warfare.

Answer 4

I'd like to know the answer to that myself.

And from what I've read, the U.S. seems to have become the world's police force over the past century, and most of the rest of the world seems to resent us for it.

Answer 5

Iraq was justified by Saddam's failure to comply with nuclear inspections per UN resolution.
Afghanistan was justified by Taliban support and harboring of Al-Qaida.
What other wars are you talking about?

Answer 6

We are not responsible, most of the factions that are at war right now, have been fighting each other for centuries.

Answer 7

sorry but we have ignored threats to innocent people whenever it didn't serve our interests and we have certainly started wars before - do we start every war, no that is stupid. Do we help - nope, fraid not

Answer 8

Its called the dialectical process by Hegel

Answer 9

i think the only responsible one is BUSH the master of terrorism
may he burn in the hell he created in the world
Iraq , Afghanistan , Lebanon , Palestine and the rest of the world
may his soul rest in HELL

Answer 10

Like an old Billy Joel song..."We didn't start the fire"