Guest Post by Jeff Thomas via International Man
There’s an old joke about an adult asking two boys how a fight started between them and one boy responded as stated above.
When two children are involved, we might choose to lecture them both and possibly punish the one who instigated the fight. But when nations are guilty of the same behaviour, we tend to simply accept the rather absurd explanation as being reasonable.
Back in the 1950s, the US sought to establish a presence in Vietnam. First, “military advisors” were sent in, then armaments. But soon, US troops were added. When the US public objected to their country instigating a war halfway around the world, where it had no business being, President Johnson made the announcement that the destroyer USS Maddox had just been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.
As it turned out, the Maddox had sailed into the North Vietnamese harbour uninvited and began firing on North Vietnamese ships. The ships returned fire. Although only one bullet actually hit the Maddox, several North Vietnamese ships were damaged and Vietnamese sailors were killed.
President Johnson used this incident to convince the American people that North Vietnam had attacked a US ship and they needed to be taught a lesson. It was at that point that the US began the Vietnam War in earnest. It ended in defeat for the US, but not before over 1.3 million deaths were totted up.
In 2001, the US was spoiling for war with Iraq. Although US public opinion favoured a diplomatic approach, President George Bush stated emphatically that Iraq had had a hand in the 2001 attack on the US and that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” that may have been intended for use against the US.
The US then invaded Iraq, made possible the assassination of its leader and devastated the country. It was only later that the American people learned that there were no weapons of mass destruction and never had been.
In 2015, Saudi Arabia bombed Yemen, aided by US armaments, logistical support and military personnel. Yemen fought back, aided by Iran. The US immediately cried, “Foul!” and vowed retaliation against the Yemeni-Iranian aggressors.
The attacks on Yemen have been described as a “humanitarian catastrophe” and even “genocide.” Some thirteen million Yemenis face starvation in what the United Nations has described as the “worst famine in one hundred years.”
As a result of the bad press it’s received, the US has since backed off from its active invasion of Yemen but still supports the Saudi invasion through weapons sales.
And of course, these are just a few examples. History is filled with such scenarios.
Possibly the first US use of the explanation, “The fight started when he hit me back,” came when Teddy Roosevelt sought to create the Spanish American War in order to gain control of Cuba and the Philippines. And whilst the US has since used this approach repeatedly since it began its quest for empire in 1889, it certainly did not invent this insupportable excuse for the invasion of other nations. It’s been used for millennia by leaders seeking to convince their peoples to go to war.
The US does, however, take the award for creating the most proxy wars in other nations. They have been unusually adept at creating wars in other people’s backyards, leaving American soil almost invariably untouched.
Around the world, governments that don’t cooperate with the US have been toppled, cities destroyed and populations decimated.
Alarmingly, this trend has become rampant in recent decades. Never has the US invaded so many countries, in so many parts of the world at the same time.
But why should this be? Who benefits?
Well, certainly not the people of the US. Wars are the costliest activity that governments have ever invented. But governments tend to be lavish in supporting wars, once they’ve begun. And of course, warfare is supported by a single-payer system: the taxpayer. The more wars, the more tax must be extracted from the populace.
So, again, who does benefit?
Well, the one entity that invariably benefits from warfare is the military-industrial complex – the group of companies that supply planes, tanks, rifles and even the socks that the soldiers wear. All for inflated prices that would never be tolerated if the same goods were sold in stores.
The tab from the military-industrial complex rises each year. This has been made possible through the creation of perpetual warfare. The more countries the US is at war with at any given time, the greater the sales to the US government by the complex.
Of course, in order for this to occur, political leaders must continue to start wars with regularity and keep them going as long as possible, even to the point of pointlessness, as in the eighteen-year old War in Afghanistan, in which the US has not yet achieved a victory of any kind against the poorly armed, untrained, unorganized Afghani sheepherders.
But it has cost the taxpayer $975 billion so far.
And it wouldn’t be surprising if the military-industrial complex were to show its gratitude to political leaders with monetary rewards. Indeed, it would help to explain why congressmen who receive an annual salary of only $174,000 never seem to leave office without having become millionaires during their tenure.
Of course, the average American can have no effect on the way in which his country is run. Certainly, whilst each party promises to change the system and end corruption, there is never any change for the better, regardless of which party is in power at any given time.
However, an understanding of how the system really functions increases the citizen’s awareness of his own role in it. His government regards him as a milk cow, one that’s regularly required to provide more milk to support the ever-increasing demand within the “system.”
And the next time a political leader pontificates that a foreign country poses a threat to the US and the US needs to “hit back,” he may wish to question the validity of the claim.
Editor’s Note: The US government is overextending itself by interfering in every corner of the globe. It’s all financed by massive amounts of money printing. However, the next financial crisis could end the whole charade soon.
The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. And most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details. Click here to download the PDF now.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
if we stop fighting wars we will see unemployment rocket up. it’s the only industry the oligarchs were not allowed to take jobs offshore. we’re trapped.
yes, the economy would collapse without the wars going on now
So returning a trillion dollars a year to the American people to spend as they wish would collapse the economy? Absurd.
The misconception that war is good for the economy has been widespread for a long time. The money that is spent on military products (guns, planes, etc.) is taxpayer money, or borrowed or printed money. If that money was instead spent on other things produced in this country (as opposed to imported goods) the effect on the economy would be exactly the same, but the citizens would have the benefit a higher standard of living. Or for that matter, if the money was simply handed out as welfare payments to the poor the effect on the economy would be roughly the same.
Ideally though we wouldn’t be using taxpayer money (or borrowed or printed money) for any of that stuff. If the taxes were lowered so the workers could just keep their money in the first place and spend it how they see fit, instead of having it confiscated by the government to build products to destroy stuff in foreign countries, everyone would be better off, both us and the foreign countries that are being destroyed.
They believed the same BS at the end of WW1 and the end of WW2. Freedom, and returning all that wasted money to the PRODUCTIVE (versus destructive) economy, has a way of ushering in prosperity and employment.
We export death. The Gov. tells us what they want us to think. the military/industrial complex and this thing where we hand out money to the world(foreign aid) what kind of crap is this? Borrowing and printing to give money away. Wars that never end. Term limits are needed badly.
Yes, I gladly gave you a thumbs up but personally I prefer the gallows over term limits. Bush had term limits. “Oh, so there wasn’t weapons of mass destruction after all? Follow me Jr.” I am a Christian but when it comes to these liars murdering innocent people I could stand there all day and run the lever on that trap door; slam, dunk…………next. Just my opinion, Thanks.
The military industrial complex (MIC) is NOT the main recipient of war.
The banks that loan the money to purchase the equipment of war, that fund the war, and then loan money to both sides for reconstruction after the war are the big prize.
It’s the old magicians trick of making sure that we are watching the MIC’s profits while the banks do the actual trick with the other hand.
Thank you Steve!
“But why should this be? Who benefits?” ……the jews, don’t forget the jews
And don’t forget the Jewish coup underway in Washington, against the first President to oppose their wars.
The ones endlessly poking the hornet’s nest, invariably blame the hornet’s for the resulting stings.
That’s true. It’s also true that I’ve been warned about this crisis approximately 837,699 times in the past decade or so.
————— –
That’s because we’ve been told about this global crisis approximately 837,699 times in the past decade or so. (BCWS — boy cries wolf syndrome).
Stuck
I sent you an email.
Got it. So solly, amigo. Was just trying to stir up some poop … will have to come up with something else. 🙂
I sent you an email too.
What if you had a machine that could print dollars? You could fight all kinds of ways in all kinds of places and the taxpayers and the rest of the world would have to pay for your spending. Neat.
what ter hell happened to yer dignity? Billah would chew yer gawddam tail fer cheerleadin’ for the magpie!
here’s we thought ya were the champion of the underclassless like me ‘n Billah and it turns out yer fell for that country bumpkin born in a pumpkin shit magster serves up with so much homespun sugar taffy it’ll make yer teeth rot if you don’t stop the banner ads. Billah would prolly say its just embarassing to see you fall so far, amigo.
Another reason Congresscritters get rich is being immune to insider-trading laws.
Back in the 1950s, the US sought to establish a presence in Vietnam.
The US was supporting France’s efforts to re-colonized what was then known as French-Indochina shortly after WW2 had ended.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from mtholyoke.edu:
The Pentagon Papers, Section 1, pp. 179-214
The United States decision to provide military assistance to France and the Associated States of Indochina was reached informally in February/March 1950, funded by the President on May 1, 1950, and was announced on May 8 of that year. The decision was taken in spite of the U.S. desire to avoid direct involvement in a colonial war, and in spite of a sensing that France’s political-military situation in Indochina was bad and was deteriorating. Moreover, predictions that U.S. aid would achieve a marked difference in the course of the Indochina War were heavily qualified.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent9.htm
Sorry, Mr. Thomas. The Vietnam War was a mistake, but not because “we had no business being there”. People who say that seem to forget a little thing called Communism, an evil menace to humanity that had to be stopped at all costs. These are usually te same people who, 705 years after BItler died, still picture Nazis as the villains yet never say a word about the Communists (perhaps because THAT would cut a bit too close to the bone for a certain demographic). Next to the Communists, the Nazis were mere pikers, small fry. Hundreds of millions of innocent, decent people were murdered by these thugs and the terrible moral and politicial damage they did lives on in the “Progressives” and Leftists of today. We were right to fight the Communists, in Vietnam or anywhere else.
The mistake of Vietnam was that we did not chose our battle wisely, even though the war was just. You fight to win and you fight when you have a chance of winning, unless you have no other choice. Having failed to take effective action against the murderous Fidel Castro Communist regime 90 miles from Key West, why wade into a war in Vietnam that we had no intention of carrying to the enemy? And, yes, all bullshit to the contrary, Castro did more real damage to us than the Soviets, at least after 1959. He poisoned the Third World against America, put Latin America through decades of instability, terrorism and guerrilla warfare (which resulted in military dictatorships), and sed his island as a base for all of our enemies.