Does the US want peace or war???

water

Transparent, tasteless, odorless
OG Investor
No matter who wins the election, do you really think things like this will stop?

Do we want peace or war???

How come India is specifying that 3% of foreign investment must be re-invested in developing local skills to create more jobs there but US companies are busy exporting jobs?????


Read the shit yourself.........

:smh::smh::smh:



Gates Butters Up India for U.S. Guns

The Defense Secretary is helping to broker deals with stateside weapons manufacturers so the U.S. can supplant Russia as India's top arms source

0226_robert_gates.jpg





by Nandini Lakshman

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on a sales mission to India. Apart from the big-ticket military hardware the U.S. hopes to sell its close friend and ally as part of the secretary's two-day visit, Western defense contractors are keen to develop India as a long-term customer and hope to wean the country from its long-term weapons supplier, Russia.


Gates' Feb. 26-27 trip comes less than two weeks after the four-day Defense Expo 2008 which concluded in New Delhi on Feb 19.



Hawking their wares there were almost all the big, global weapons players: Raytheon, Boeing, Sweden's Saab, France's Dassault, Britain's BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and many arms dealers from Israel.






Gates' visit also occurs close to India's Mar. 3 internal deadline to consider bids worth $10.2 billion for 125 new fighter jets.





Gates met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and opposition leaders like L.K. Advani, head of the Bharatiya Janata party; at these meetings he was expected to push America's case as an ideal partner for India, given the Asian nation's defense requirements.



At a brief press conference in New Delhi Gates stated that he wanted to "expand the significantly improved relations between the U.S. and India."

The second day of the visit is expected to bring a slew of new defense deals.


Gates' trip comes in sharp contrast to the last Pentagon visit to India in November, 2006.


Then, Under-Secretary of Defense Frank Lavin arrived with a 250-member delegation representing 175 U.S. companies to negotiate hookups with Indian companies to build nuclear reactors.



Fighter Jets in Play

With Gates, however, the mission is different. For Lavin, closing the controversial civilian nuclear deal with the Indians was a priority.


Now, despite the nuclear issue having hit gridlock due to opposition in India's Parliament, both India and the U.S. have moved closer than ever.



Gates' trip couldn't have been better timed: India is pursuing a plan to improve its armed forces dramatically.



New Delhi is expected to buy around $100 billion worth of equipment and technology including fighter aircraft and submarines over the next five years, replacing its outdated Russian arsenal.





Being India's first option in defense equipment, over Russia, is Gates' goal.


The fighter jets are the big purchase in play.



Here, apart from the American F-16s and F-18s, Russia's MiG-35s are being aggressively marketed to the Indians. The Americans seem to be in the lead.



In a separate purchase in early February, India agreed to buy six military transport planes worth $1 billion from Lockheed Martin (LMT).



This time, both Lockheed and Boeing are vying to sell fighter jets to India.


India desperately needs aircraft carriers, too, as its purchase of the Russian ship Admiral Gorshkov is delayed, and India's own carrier, the INS Viraat, is aging fast.



For weeks, reports have circulated in Indian newspapers and on various blogs that the U.S. would give the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, a conventionally fueled carrier that was slated for decommissioning, to India. But a Navy spokesman in Washington, Lt. Col. Clay Doss, shot that story down. "We're not doing it," he said. "The Navy has no plans to transfer the Kitty Hawk to India, nor is this a subject of discussion between our navies at any level."



He noted that any transfer of ships so huge requires congressional approval. The Navy, he added, hasn't sought such approval to transfer the Kitty Hawk to India.


Strengthening U.S.-India Alliance

C. Uday Bhaskar, security analyst and former director of the New Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies & Analysis, stresses that it is highly desirable for both the U.S and India to deepen their military ties.



India needs to lessen its dependence on Russia for weaponry, and to obtain the latest technology, in which the U.S. leads. It will take some time for the U.S. to replace Russia as the premier arms supplier to India. But India is leaning increasingly towards Washington.


Helping that goal along is corporate India, with a new interest in India's defense business.



In 2003 New Delhi privatized defense manufacturing and purchase so India could build up its own industry.



New Delhi has stipulated that successful foreign bidders on weapons deals must reinvest 30% of the value of any contract worth more than $70 million in India-based manufacturing, so weapons technology and skills can develop at home.





Consequently, foreign companies have been scanning the radar for suitable local partners. And there are plenty in India.



In the last week the $50 billion Tata group struck five deals, including a $500 million contract with Boeing for arms-related components and one with Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, to establish an S-92 helicopter cabin production unit.



Raytheon's been talking to Indian tech major Wipro , manufacturer Godrej & Boyce, and engineering giant Larsen & Toubro about armaments projects.


It's a business windfall for sure.


The Indians see U.S. investments as a way of containing India's militarily aggressive neighbors, China and Pakistan.






They also see it as a prestige play for India in the global arena. Indian Defense Review's Verma says that by assigning stakes to "friends like the U.S., Germany, and France, India can leverage its stature in international fora. It's a win-win situation."



http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb20080226_068998.htm?link_position=link5
 
Without having read the whole article I'd say that America wants profits for their big industry: Defense contractors. By supplanting Russia in India, the US denies the Bear funds and creates new cash flow for her own coffers. But beyond all that is the reality of building up India as a strong military power. With uncertainty in Pakistan, India is a strategic ally in case Islamabad collapses and those nukes get yanked. Russia is more interested in protecting their southeastern Asian flank even as unrest in Serbia poses a minor concern in their southwest/eastern European region. The Asian flank is more of an immediate concern than the one being staged in the European theatre, so I suspect Moscow won't just roll over and let the US stake that Indian arms claim. China is also looking on keenly, wanting badly to dump its huge surplus of cheap US dollars. If the Sino weapons sector could produce quality weapons they'd also be a bidder for the Indian defense market.

War is the reality Kaya. The US pumps it up in other people's backyard but we better start realizing that the face of South America is changing and don't expect Cuba to remain on the sidelines in Latin America. As America's economy continues its withering on the vine, her foreign loans and expenditures in Latin America will begin drying up also, leaving the door open for some anxious Europen interests to readily step in now that they're flush with Euros. That would also include arms deals. Look for Brazil to emerge as an overlooked under estimated economic player as the world begins its shift away from straight oil and toward alternative fuels. Venezuela has begun to flex its new status as a major player on the world stage as oil profits continues driving their economy upward. Look for them to thwart US interests in Argentina and Colombia
 

War is the reality Kaya. The US pumps it up in other people's backyard but we better start realizing that the face of South America is changing and don't expect Cuba to remain on the sidelines in Latin America. As America's economy continues its withering on the vine, her foreign loans and expenditures in Latin America will begin drying up also, leaving the door open for some anxious Europen interests to readily step in now that they're flush with Euros. That would also include arms deals. Look for Brazil to emerge as an overlooked under estimated economic player as the world begins its shift away from straight oil and toward alternative fuels. Venezuela has begun to flex its new status as a major player on the world stage as oil profits continues driving their economy upward. Look for them to thwart US interests in Argentina and Colombia

NN,

You've been on your shit lately man. Living in South America now..., I can cosign pretty much everything about about Latin America....and Brasil is getting very strong....every day my Dollars are becoming less valuable against the Real. Chavez is definitely using the oil profits to make himself a player on the Latin American stage..especially with this latest 300 million dollar funding of Farc. I hope we don't see a major conflict down here.
 
NN,

You've been on your shit lately man. Living in South America now..., I can cosign pretty much everything about about Latin America....and Brasil is getting very strong....every day my Dollars are becoming less valuable against the Real. Chavez is definitely using the oil profits to make himself a player on the Latin American stage..especially with this latest 300 million dollar funding of Farc. I hope we don't see a major conflict down here.
Thanks E. I knew I had to at least come close on South America cause I knew you'd be the one to call me out if I was off. You were definitely in my thought patterns as I wrote it. Still
spelling Brasil with a "z". Gotta start changing over ;)

I also hope war doesn't break out down there. South America might become the hot place to be if shit up here starts going to Hell. We're only seeing the tip of a melting iceberg I'm afraid. The Feds are preparing for actual bank failures by hiring previous specialists in that field :smh:
 
No matter who wins the election, do you really think things like this will stop?

Do we want peace or war???

How come India is specifying that 3% of foreign investment must be re-invested in developing local skills to create more jobs there but US companies are busy exporting jobs?????


Read the shit yourself.........

:smh::smh::smh:



Gates Butters Up India for U.S. Guns

The Defense Secretary is helping to broker deals with stateside weapons manufacturers so the U.S. can supplant Russia as India's top arms source

0226_robert_gates.jpg





by Nandini Lakshman

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on a sales mission to India. Apart from the big-ticket military hardware the U.S. hopes to sell its close friend and ally as part of the secretary's two-day visit, Western defense contractors are keen to develop India as a long-term customer and hope to wean the country from its long-term weapons supplier, Russia.


Gates' Feb. 26-27 trip comes less than two weeks after the four-day Defense Expo 2008 which concluded in New Delhi on Feb 19.



Hawking their wares there were almost all the big, global weapons players: Raytheon, Boeing, Sweden's Saab, France's Dassault, Britain's BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and many arms dealers from Israel.






Gates' visit also occurs close to India's Mar. 3 internal deadline to consider bids worth $10.2 billion for 125 new fighter jets.





Gates met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and opposition leaders like L.K. Advani, head of the Bharatiya Janata party; at these meetings he was expected to push America's case as an ideal partner for India, given the Asian nation's defense requirements.



At a brief press conference in New Delhi Gates stated that he wanted to "expand the significantly improved relations between the U.S. and India."

The second day of the visit is expected to bring a slew of new defense deals.


Gates' trip comes in sharp contrast to the last Pentagon visit to India in November, 2006.


Then, Under-Secretary of Defense Frank Lavin arrived with a 250-member delegation representing 175 U.S. companies to negotiate hookups with Indian companies to build nuclear reactors.



Fighter Jets in Play

With Gates, however, the mission is different. For Lavin, closing the controversial civilian nuclear deal with the Indians was a priority.


Now, despite the nuclear issue having hit gridlock due to opposition in India's Parliament, both India and the U.S. have moved closer than ever.



Gates' trip couldn't have been better timed: India is pursuing a plan to improve its armed forces dramatically.



New Delhi is expected to buy around $100 billion worth of equipment and technology including fighter aircraft and submarines over the next five years, replacing its outdated Russian arsenal.





Being India's first option in defense equipment, over Russia, is Gates' goal.


The fighter jets are the big purchase in play.



Here, apart from the American F-16s and F-18s, Russia's MiG-35s are being aggressively marketed to the Indians. The Americans seem to be in the lead.



In a separate purchase in early February, India agreed to buy six military transport planes worth $1 billion from Lockheed Martin (LMT).



This time, both Lockheed and Boeing are vying to sell fighter jets to India.


India desperately needs aircraft carriers, too, as its purchase of the Russian ship Admiral Gorshkov is delayed, and India's own carrier, the INS Viraat, is aging fast.



For weeks, reports have circulated in Indian newspapers and on various blogs that the U.S. would give the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, a conventionally fueled carrier that was slated for decommissioning, to India. But a Navy spokesman in Washington, Lt. Col. Clay Doss, shot that story down. "We're not doing it," he said. "The Navy has no plans to transfer the Kitty Hawk to India, nor is this a subject of discussion between our navies at any level."



He noted that any transfer of ships so huge requires congressional approval. The Navy, he added, hasn't sought such approval to transfer the Kitty Hawk to India.


Strengthening U.S.-India Alliance

C. Uday Bhaskar, security analyst and former director of the New Delhi-based Institute for Defense Studies & Analysis, stresses that it is highly desirable for both the U.S and India to deepen their military ties.



India needs to lessen its dependence on Russia for weaponry, and to obtain the latest technology, in which the U.S. leads. It will take some time for the U.S. to replace Russia as the premier arms supplier to India. But India is leaning increasingly towards Washington.


Helping that goal along is corporate India, with a new interest in India's defense business.



In 2003 New Delhi privatized defense manufacturing and purchase so India could build up its own industry.



New Delhi has stipulated that successful foreign bidders on weapons deals must reinvest 30% of the value of any contract worth more than $70 million in India-based manufacturing, so weapons technology and skills can develop at home.





Consequently, foreign companies have been scanning the radar for suitable local partners. And there are plenty in India.



In the last week the $50 billion Tata group struck five deals, including a $500 million contract with Boeing for arms-related components and one with Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft, to establish an S-92 helicopter cabin production unit.



Raytheon's been talking to Indian tech major Wipro , manufacturer Godrej & Boyce, and engineering giant Larsen & Toubro about armaments projects.


It's a business windfall for sure.


The Indians see U.S. investments as a way of containing India's militarily aggressive neighbors, China and Pakistan.






They also see it as a prestige play for India in the global arena. Indian Defense Review's Verma says that by assigning stakes to "friends like the U.S., Germany, and France, India can leverage its stature in international fora. It's a win-win situation."



http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb20080226_068998.htm?link_position=link5

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/n4jMzKxYB74[/FLASH]
Business as usuall...!!!!!:smh::angry::puke:
 
Damn Nubian........ you are on your shit!!!!

Nuff props.........

:dance::dance::dance:
 
It must be scary for the world knowing that the country with its currency in such a decline is also the country with such a technological superiority in weapons!
If this country economy collapses, like many feel it may, how long do you think it would take, the average American Joe, "who in compared to most of the world, have lived a relatively comfy life, and has been spoiled over the years with surplus, excess and greed" to show his true colors, and demand that this country uses the might of the weapons, he has paid good tax money on, to take back the lifestyle he feels he deserves!
So the question shouldn't be does the US want peace or war, but rather, are we willing to kill in order to have our cake and eat it too!

"This question can be deeper than first thought"~
 
man, what do you think?

war is an economic phenomenon. think about it; why does america have a war every few years?

why do we have have so many bullshit holidays?

why do we have so much crime?

law, policitics and crime are depend on each other. this is a capitalistic society (which means anything goes if you can make money from it).
 
Chavez is definitely using the oil profits to make himself a player on the Latin American stage..especially with this latest 300 million dollar funding of Farc. I hope we don't see a major conflict down here.

If you're saying Chavez is supplying money to FARC, I call Bulls*it.
 
We want POWER. we could care less how it comes. But we want it.
We use war as a means to an end.

We havent fought a non-power related war since world war 1.

Wars before that tended to be for Rights/freedoms. We don't know ho wthe ancients fought. btu today it's all about power.
 
I've heard it argued that war is peace, but without opening that pandoras box, I'll just point towards the obvious. America is the largest manufacturer and consumer of armaments worldwide, it would seem fitting that we be encouraged by (?) to use them. Without war those weapons sit unused, those new fantastic technologies and industries which produce them aren't being funded, agendas aren't being progressed.

In order to achieve the hegemonic goals set, perpetual conflicts are fostered. This is why the bullets fly.
 
man, what do you think?

war is an economic phenomenon. think about it; why does america have a war every few years?

why do we have have so many bullshit holidays?

why do we have so much crime?

law, policitics and crime are depend on each other. this is a capitalistic society (which means anything goes if you can make money from it).
:yes::yes:
 
We want POWER. we could care less how it comes. But we want it.
We use war as a means to an end.

We havent fought a non-power related war since world war 1.

Wars before that tended to be for Rights/freedoms. We don't know ho wthe ancients fought. btu today it's all about power.

I agree.

To me, ALL wars are about EGO and POWER.

Religion is an excuse.
Economics is an excuse.
Safety is an excuse.

Just about any war in history could have been solved with diplomacy, trade, and compromise. But one or BOTH sides insisted on stroking that EGO and POWER-TRIPPING.
 
Capitalism needs war...it is a part of what artificially inflates its decrepit economy along with drug money and debt.

Excellent thread soldiers.
 
Too much for me to read, but since the US doesn't manufacture anything really, except wars...then my answer would be WAR!!!!

Kill them all GOD will know his own.
 
Without having read the whole article I'd say that America wants profits for their big industry: Defense contractors. By supplanting Russia in India, the US denies the Bear funds and creates new cash flow for her own coffers. But beyond all that is the reality of building up India as a strong military power. With uncertainty in Pakistan, India is a strategic ally in case Islamabad collapses and those nukes get yanked. Russia is more interested in protecting their southeastern Asian flank even as unrest in Serbia poses a minor concern in their southwest/eastern European region. The Asian flank is more of an immediate concern than the one being staged in the European theatre, so I suspect Moscow won't just roll over and let the US stake that Indian arms claim. China is also looking on keenly, wanting badly to dump its huge surplus of cheap US dollars. If the Sino weapons sector could produce quality weapons they'd also be a bidder for the Indian defense market.

War is the reality Kaya. The US pumps it up in other people's backyard but we better start realizing that the face of South America is changing and don't expect Cuba to remain on the sidelines in Latin America. As America's economy continues its withering on the vine, her foreign loans and expenditures in Latin America will begin drying up also, leaving the door open for some anxious Europen interests to readily step in now that they're flush with Euros. That would also include arms deals. Look for Brazil to emerge as an overlooked under estimated economic player as the world begins its shift away from straight oil and toward alternative fuels. Venezuela has begun to flex its new status as a major player on the world stage as oil profits continues driving their economy upward. Look for them to thwart US interests in Argentina and Colombia

Damn Nubian did you get a new job as MSNBC's new World Affairs Correspondent? Damn good read. BTW I concur.
 
DwightDEisenhower-circa1956.jpg

source: Michigan State University.edu

Military-Industrial Complex Farwell Address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

My fellow Americans:

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

II.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

III.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

IV.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

V.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

VII.

So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.​
 
Wars make money:(

and there you have it

bottom line is the money generated from war is huge. from construction contracts, to companies that send toiletries over seas, gun manufacturing, the discovery and building of trade roads

until there is a global unification there will always be war

but its just not the united states.. all leaders want to rule over all.


all wars have always been over land and its resources...
 
"I'm just here to do my time."

When Jesus gets here I will have kids.(Thats what I tell em;))

Thats why nothing these wicked mothafuckas have planned worries me.:smh:

My grandmother died waiting on Jesus to return...or got tired of waiting (Bless her heart)

Based on History, count on this shit to get worse....and at the same time stop worrying about the future.

Fuck no the US Gov. wont want peace till shit comes down hard on them.

As weak as the U.S. is right now they need to stop steppin on mothafuckas toes.
 
Without having read the whole article I'd say that America wants profits for their big industry: Defense contractors. By supplanting Russia in India, the US denies the Bear funds and creates new cash flow for her own coffers. But beyond all that is the reality of building up India as a strong military power. With uncertainty in Pakistan, India is a strategic ally in case Islamabad collapses and those nukes get yanked. Russia is more interested in protecting their southeastern Asian flank even as unrest in Serbia poses a minor concern in their southwest/eastern European region. The Asian flank is more of an immediate concern than the one being staged in the European theatre, so I suspect Moscow won't just roll over and let the US stake that Indian arms claim. China is also looking on keenly, wanting badly to dump its huge surplus of cheap US dollars. If the Sino weapons sector could produce quality weapons they'd also be a bidder for the Indian defense market.

War is the reality Kaya. The US pumps it up in other people's backyard but we better start realizing that the face of South America is changing and don't expect Cuba to remain on the sidelines in Latin America. As America's economy continues its withering on the vine, her foreign loans and expenditures in Latin America will begin drying up also, leaving the door open for some anxious Europen interests to readily step in now that they're flush with Euros. That would also include arms deals. Look for Brazil to emerge as an overlooked under estimated economic player as the world begins its shift away from straight oil and toward alternative fuels. Venezuela has begun to flex its new status as a major player on the world stage as oil profits continues driving their economy upward. Look for them to thwart US interests in Argentina and Colombia


CANT ADD ANYTHING ELSE HERE

YOU SUMMED UP ALMOST EVERYTHING HERE

GOOD ANALYSIS
 
Back
Top