Is the United States addicted to war?

  • Article by: Steve Chapman , Creators Syndicate
  • Updated: September 6, 2013 - 12:22 PM

We fight wars of choice to prove credibility and not wars of necessity.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
drposterSep. 5, 13 9:57 PM

Our political leaders are addicted to war.

50
2
xenonimusSep. 5, 1310:36 PM

I think it is naïve to believe that the US Government's motive with regard to Syria is to 'save face', or even to prove a point. Syria is Iran's only major ally in the region, and our government (as well as the Israelis) wants to isolate Iran more than anything. Our government has a long history, from the War of 1812 onward, of creating provocations in order to justify military interventions which will satisfy our geopolitical ambitions. The Syrian government has been sensible enough not to provoke Israel, but then throws caution to the wind and provokes the United States? Really? It's worth considering that Obama essentially told the rebels what it would take to get America more directly involved by declaring that the use of chemical weapons was a 'red line'. It's almost certain that the rebels, which include many soldiers and leaders from the Syrian Army, have captured significant stocks of chemical weapons, and they have more motive to use them than the Syrian government does. We here lots of talk from our government, and now the British, about just how certain they are that chemical weapons were used, but nothing concrete which proves the Syrian government was responsible. With the intelligence resources our government has at their disposal, I find it difficult to believe that they cannot produce concrete evidence... unless is simply does not exist.

28
3
imfedupSep. 5, 1311:00 PM

We have NO business heading into another conflict that is not based on the need to protect the U.S. The U.K.'s leaders got it right - it's too bad ours are more interested in Syria than the issues here at home. Maybe they'll have time to work on the budget in 90 days?

48
0
erikj3Sep. 6, 13 3:20 AM

"Is the United States addicted to war?"...Apparently we are, when so many of our leaders (even Democrats) feel the need to shoot missiles at every problem (nevermind Iraq, and even Afghanistan at this point-both such wastes!). I get that the world is complicated and there are a lot of bad people out there, but really, are the Syrians worse than the Saudis? How about Mubarak, who the US propped up for 30+ years? Let's think about who we are currently in bed with before getting involved in yet another war in the Mideast.

42
0
texas_technomanSep. 6, 13 3:26 AM

Yup, and a lot of it has to do with the huge military industrial complex and all the ex military they hire as lobbyists. After all, it's all about jobs baby....

43
0
wa0tdaSep. 6, 13 5:06 AM

No wonder the story in The Onion about a fake poll suggesting most Americans would rather send Congress to Syria rings true.

41
1
harrisstevenSep. 6, 13 5:13 AM

Watch the spokespersons. They use the ted "International norms", not "International laws:. That is because attacking Syria is AGAINST International law.

26
2
comment229Sep. 6, 13 5:55 AM

A history lesson; and it starts with a question or two. When did the USA go in and attack a foreign nation with air power and who was the president? If my memory serves me correctly, it was Reagan after the bombing of the flight over Lockerbie. So why was that bombing of Libya justified and the proposed bombing of Syria not justified? Simple.... Americans were killed aboard that flight but no Americans died in Syria. It's time for the international community to be responsible in this case.

22
0
jegelkrout2Sep. 6, 13 6:20 AM

Our business leaders are addicted to war. Our politicians are just hired to sell us on the idea.

31
4
Packman_1Sep. 6, 13 6:42 AM

America, or should I say a certain segment of it, is certainly addicted to war. Adddicted is not really the right word either. Or, if it is, the addition is to money, not war. The defense indistry employs more lobbyists in Congress than any other group, with the possible exception being Wall street banks. Defense is HUGE business. Syria is a complicated mess. From the different factions that the US has at one time supported to the oil and gas pipelines to the unspoken defense of Israel and a possible confrontation with Russia, the whole region is a mess. But the war hawks like John McCain and the gigantic industry they lobby for have a tremendous amount of influence. Money guides our foreign policy and has for at least 30 years. Lobbing a few cruise missles won't satisy their need to expend ammunition. They need another full fledged war which allows planes to be built and new weapon systems to be funded. All we can do is hope Obama comes to his senses and stops listening to the hawks.

29
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT