Does anyone else believe we are being lead into war on a much larger scale?

Question

Is this the time to worry about genocide 100 years ago in Armenia? Is this the time to be making China and Russia angry? We need a president that is willing to be diplomatic, but the one we have just seems to have more war on his mind. What do you think the agenda really is, no doubt they have been working on one for a while now?

Thanks for the article Trevor!

People need to see smoke screens for what they are. They are posturing us to go along with what ever they can make us believe. Reps and Dems are the same party, in time everyone will see that.

Answer 1

On the larger scale, the increasing push for war has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide of a century ago. The real catalyst for war is bound up in nation-state capitalism where each nation's ruling elite fight with and against other nation-state's ruling elite for control of key resources and markets. This was the real cause of both WWI and WWII.

Here's an excerpt from an article in today's edition of The World Socialist Web Site

---------------------------------------------------------

The political affairs of the last week bear an eerie resemblance to the Great Power rivalry at the turn of the twentieth century that preceded World War I. Conflicts over economic resources, strategic spheres of influence and colonial empires became more bitter and intractable. Clashes over competing interests in key areas of the globe led to complex diplomatic manoeuvring and shifting alliances. Eventually two military blocs were consolidated that came to blows over the Balkans and fought a savage war in which millions died.

It is of course possible that tensions between Russia and the US can be ameliorated. As he has proved in the past, Putin is more than capable of cutting a deal with the Bush administration that would, for instance, sacrifice Iran in return for a freeze on US anti-missile plans in Eastern Europe. But with the White House showing no signs of a compromise on either issue and growing evidence of US military preparations against Iran, dangers of a wider conflagration are growing. The resource-rich regions of Middle East and Central Asia, in which all the major powers are seeking to stake their claim, is emerging as the Balkans of the twenty-first century.

In his typically incoherent fashion, President Bush yesterday blurted out the preoccupations being discussed privately in the upper echelons of government around the globe. Hours after Putin called for renewed diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, the American president dismissed suggestions of a US-Russian rift, and restated allegations that Iran intended to “destroy” Israel. He then added that Iran’s nuclear programs had to be stopped “if you are interested in avoiding World War III”.

Of course, if there were no rift between the US and Russia, or other countries such as China, why is Bush even raising the issue of world war which, by definition, would involve the major powers? In fact, the deepening crisis of world capitalism is producing an intensifying global competition for raw materials, markets and cheap labour and fuelling the drive toward another world war. In this context, US imperialism is playing the most destabilising role, seeking to offset its long-term economic decline through the aggressive use of its residual military might in Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially Iran.

Answer 2

Firstly, you are alluding that the President is pushing the Armenian issue when, in fact, it is the Democratically-controlled Congress. You are assuming that Russia and China are "angry" at us. Even if they were, what would they be angry about? Usually, other countries get upset at us if they believe the US is acting outside of their interests (with Russia and China, they each have reasons for Iran to get at least somewhat stronger and neither are in our interests).
Diplomacy is being used. The question is, if diplomacy fails, what do you do? The other question is - what are the benchmarks and time table for diplomacy to work before it is considered being a failure.
As far as President Bush using WWIII and Israel in the same sentence, the Israelis have made it clear that tehy will not allow a nuclear-armed Iran - the same country that has vowed Israel's destruction. Any attack on Iran by Israel will surely escalate and draw us in. Since a potential regional conflict in the area shipping most of the world's energy supplies, it is possible that other powers could be drawn in.
Though the US should take that into consideration, it boils down to what is in our interests.

Answer 3

It seems to me that the next war will be with Iran. All the time there are accusations that Iran is supplying the Iraki resistance with arms and instructors. Just what the basis for these accusations are I don't know. At risk of being accused of anti- semitism, may I point out that the only people in the world to benefit from the reduction of Irak into anarchy is Israel. Irak was the most powerful Arab country in the middle east, now they are gone. The next most powerful country is Iran, so they will be the next to be destroyed, but not by Israel. For some reason that quite escapes me, Israel, a tiny country the size of Wales mostly composed of desert, seems to enjoy massive support from the United Stares. There are plenty of little countries in the world that have enemies, but I don't see the USA fighting their battles at the cost of American lives and treasure. Is Israel a secret US state or something?

Answer 4

"We need a president that is willing to be diplomatic, but the one we have just seems to have more war on his mind."

4 years ago you might have been right. The world today tells a different story. Our first two original foreign problems, Afghanistan and Iraq, were met with force. The subsequent problem of a nuclear North Korea was and is being handled through diplomacy. The Palestinian region is being handled by diplomacy. So, 2 wars, 2 diplomatic interventions, I'm sorry but this president is not all about war like he tried to portray himself as. Fact is fighting a war on 2 fronts is foolish, going to 3 fronts might as well be suicide.

I would agree that more diplomacy would be nice, but it's not like it ISN'T happening. I can't fathom another war starting before Bush's term ends for several reasons. First, like I said, we won't go to fighting on 3 fronts. Second, I doubt congress would authorize force or funding for another conflict. Congress may have trouble derailing funding for troops in a war zone, for fear they will get blamed for anything bad that happens due to lack of funds, but if the troops have not been deployed yet it is a different matter entirely.

It's known that war planners are constantly drawing up plans for war in the event they have to act on them. Most countries do this, they plan for more wars than are ever waged.

Answer 5

when was the last time diplomacy worked? As we go about our diplomatic ways with Iran they build their weapons support terror and kill Americans in Iraq. World war should come quick b/c Americans like yourself are preventing the military from doing what needs to be done and turning them into police. War with Iran will finally allow us to do what needs to be done.

We will not be safe until we clean up with those who have promised us war for years. An diplomacy does not work when your enemy wants nothing more than your death

Answer 6

Definately.
At this juncture on a global scale, Issues are piling on top of issues that are secondary to other issues that connect this world power to this world power that connects other world powers that disagree because it's not in their best interest because it's not in the other world power's best interest.

Things are getting more and more intense. A lot of things have contributed to this intensity, even the smallest of things.

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Answer 7

No what we have is the Democrats playing end games that effect our troops and they don't care. Why with all the things that they need to do are they playing around with something that happened a 100 years ago and endanger our Troops unless it was something that they thought would further their agenda. Liberal politics at it's best and they need to be held accountable for their actions

Answer 8

try telling the democrat's in office to stop pissing off turkey who is on the border of Iraq and authorizing a use of force to put down Kurdish rebels.

Answer 9

just my opinion,but i believe deep down we are going to have a very new ally called turkey and there will be no rules of engagement now

Answer 10

He has no hidden agenda. He's a straight up honest man.