How the Rest of the World Views the American Military

[brush]

6. You can go back to the 1890s

when we sent Navy gunboats to help ex-pat American planters overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy, and the hundreds more interventions, occupations, invasions, coups and out right wars that have followed on up to the Vietnam war.

We have been continually at war for over a century, no matter what party is in power because the arms manufacturers, the admirals and generals and their bought politicians — the military-industrial complex — demand it and the profits they make from the wars, otherwise they have no reason for being.
(read "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinser)

If there are no wars we don't need arms manufacturers (G.E. General Dynamics, Ratheon, et al), we certainly don't need generals and admirals, and we don't need their political puppets.

This is who's calling for the Syria intervention, along with their paid-for mainstream news outlets. Funny how Boehner and Cantor and the rest of the repugs are silent now, but when Bush was president they were very vocal in support of military intervention.

Obama doesn't want to intervene but being the "President of the United States" in a heavy, heavy load because you're shouldering all of the above baggage and complexities while worrying about if it's not done how the critics will be fierce in their condemnation, and if it is done, the condemnation will be even fiercer.

One day a president is going to have the strength to say "No, war is outdated, it's so 20th century. We need to sit down and lead the way through negotiation. Only the most powerful country, the one that can wipe Syria and Assad off the map with it's weapons has the power not to use them, thus giving it the ultimate power.