For the First Time In 50 Years, a Majority of Americans Think the U.S. Should “Mind Its Own Business”

George Washington's picture

Pew noted yesterday:

Majority Says U.S. Should ‘Mind Its Own Business Internationally’

Support for U.S. global engagement, already near a historic low, has fallen further.




The [American] public thinks that the nation does too much to solve world problems, and increasing percentages want the U.S. to “mind its own business internationally” and pay more attention to problems here at home.




These are among the principal findings of America’s Place in the World, a quadrennial survey of foreign policy attitudes conducted in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nonpartisan membership organization and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy.




The public’s skepticism about U.S. international engagement – evident in America’s Place in the World surveys four and eight years ago – has increased. Currently, 52% say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Just 38% disagree with the statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. “minding its own business” in the nearly 50-year history of the measure.




After the recent near-miss with U.S. military action against Syria, the NATO mission in Libya and lengthy wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, about half of Americans (51%) say the United States does too much in helping solve world problems, while just 17% say it does too little and 28% think it does the right amount. When those who say the U.S. does “too much” internationally are asked to describe in their own words why they feel this way, nearly half (47%) say problems at home, including the economy, should get more attention.

As we’ve reported for years, the American public is sick of war.

Pew notes that even members of the Council on Foreign Relations agree:

When asked why the public has become less supportive of global engagements, 42% of CFR members point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or explicitly cite “war fatigue.” About a quarter (28%) mention the struggling U.S. economy or the costs of international engagement. Other factors cited are the ineffectiveness of recent U.S. interventions (mentioned by 19%) and failures of U.S. leadership (17%). (For more on how members of the Council on Foreign Relations view America’s Place in the World, see section 6).

Because war is bad for the economy and increases terrorism, it’s time to listen to the American people … and the Founding Fathers.



They’re Going to Dump the Fukushima Radiation Into the Ocean

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
dunce's picture

The survey question was meaningless because "our business" was not defined in any way. The reason we have government is to examine each case to determine national interest. Is oil tanker or passenger ship piracy on the high seas our business? is nationalization of American business investments in other countries our business? Is throwing our citizens in jail by tin pot dictators on trumped up charges our business?

bozzy's picture

As the Chinese spokesman replied (to Geithner's economic prescription for China as I recall) "America should shu' up and mind its own business". Trouble is, you don't get world domination by minding your own business. Most recently, Iran has been told that the price of lifting sanctions a little is that it sha not sell oil for gold. There is only one reason for that - preservation of the petrodollar hegemony. When trying to understand why so many around the globe want to kill Americans, think on that. Think on the charlatan Bernanke, destroying the savers of the global economy, with complete insouciance, untroubled by any concern, since his primary concern is to cling to the reserve statius of the dollar for as long as possible, thus ensuring that the rest of the world will pay America's bills. Those others ask themselves what are his qualifications for dominating the Global economy, and they see only a long track record as a pump and dump artist.

wisehiney's picture

im gonna be a bitch bout this, why and how could yor ever just, do what they do. I am proud, intriqued, how bout that ol wb7, damn ol bastard fights like a testosteroni, gawdamighty! I am keeping all of you. Wheather you wants me or not.

Sathington Willougby's picture

All this chart illustrates is fatuous baby boomers representing the majority.

doMiKY's picture

if only the US political class could find a way to get past the next news cycle - oh wait - something happened...

asa-vet52's picture

The US Goberment has almost always backed the wrong person in these foreign countries. Stupid politicians and stupid CIA.

honestann's picture

Holy crap!  If that chart is correct, so-called "americans" were already completely psycho in 1964 (before the vietnam war), and never even reached 50% at the height of that war?  Holy crap!  Flush the toilet on the USSA, and seal it shut.

Geez.  Now I want to see that chart all the way back to 1776.

Not that I necessarily trust the methodology.  But still.

wisehiney's picture

fearlessly, simply, happily. dig this....poet warm brown chocolat, what helliserfinename? my bad not hers...

Paraphrase...."people will not remember what you do, nor what you say, but they will never forget the way you made them feel. Tell it sis.

wisehiney's picture

studies, really, did you observe soberly, bravely, non judgementally, eagerly wisely, naturally, honestannaly, etc?

wisehiney's picture

My Bonnie lies over the ocean, my Bonnie lies over the sea, So.......Bring back, Bring Back, Birgn back my BONNIE to me, to me, birng back, bring back, Bring back my Bonnie to ME!

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

honestann said:

If that chart is correct, so-called "americans" were already completely psycho in 1964 (before the vietnam war), and never even reached 50% at the height of that war?

Yep, pretty much. Well, OK, maybe not so much psycho as credulous, unquestioning, and, with a newfound addiction to television (In Color beginning in 1965), easily led into a Cold War Red Scare paranoia.

Geez.  Now I want to see that chart all the way back to 1776.

You'd only need to go back to 1941 to see the chart move back into more sane territory. The Second World War had been going for two years and yet, much to the chagrin of FDR, most Americans didn't want to get involved. This is why FDR did everything he could to pressure the Japanese into a war footing and then maneuver them into firing the first shot. Roosevelt and a select few American military and political elite knew when and where the Japanese would attack, and they watched it all happen. They knew the brutal Japanese sneak attack would whip up public opinion into a war fever.

The defense industry and pentagon brass were calling the shots by the end of the war, but knew they couldn't continue do so indefinitely without more war. The only way to keep public opinion supporting the military largesse was with a scary enemy that was out to get them. Well, conveniently, the Iran Crisis of 1946 led to the Truman Doctrine which led to the Cold War, Korean War, and the domino theory. Once the Soviets had an atom bomb, the MIC had a nuclear-armed global communist threat that they could use to scare the American public into compliance.

The US never demobilized the military after the end of the Second World War, and still hasn't to this day. The only time it looked like it might come close was after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. People were even talking about a peace dividend since there was no longer a need for all the MIC lampreys sucking the precious bodily fluids from the economy.

It's a Good Thing® all them terrists came along and stepped up to the plate in 2001. Otherwise, Americans would have been deprived of a scary enemy that was out to get them.

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Good points, but you're forgetting the "indigenous ones", slavery and women in 1776.

Bear in mind that the Constitution was written by white Western European males for white Western European males...

I've always looked at it (nothing more nothing less) than a work in progress that always had great potential but never got it right!

If the Framers had to rewrite "All Men are Created Equal" with Native Americans heading the list and everyone else behind them, it would have made a monumental difference. 

That and a codicil in the Articles of Confederation that demanded that if the Executive and Legislative were to ever enact any of the war powers "the people" each and every one of them would be summoned for a stake in it with a vote.

Republic's have always been on shaky ground and we've been proof of that fact for far too many decades.

honestann's picture

Oh yes!  And looking back, I came to an opinion that most folks would consider astonishing.  I know I was astonished when the following realization occurred to me.

The natives had the best system ever devised.  The "white man" should have just fit into the system that existed in the americas.

What do I mean?  Well, think about the structure they had.

Essentially, they had "tribes", some of which were barely larger than extended family groups (3 to 4 generations of one, two, three, a few families).  Whether each tribe moved around or not, it was pretty much a "tiny settlement".  Each tribe had their own ways and their own rules.  Some were rather libertarian, some were rather authoritarian.

And between them was.... no mans land.  Mostly empty space.

Now, think about it.  How can anyone improve on this?  Anyone who likes the way tribe A is run, can live with tribe A.  If they don't, they can take what they've heard about other tribes, go check them out to see what the real scoop is, and join them if they wish (and if they are accepted).

And if they prefer to not be subject to any rules or authority?  Live in no mans land, alone, with a partner, with a family, with an extended family, with... whoever you and they want to coexist with.

So, what is this?

Sheeple get to be sheeple, and choose the "master" they prefer.

Extended families get to live as extended families, and live as they wish.

Individualists get to live as individualists, alone or in small gatherings.

Everyone gets what they want.

Now, I'm not saying tribes never attack other tribes, or that everyone is safe and secure alone in the boonies.  I'm not enough of a historian to know the details.

But the basic principle of that structure is correct.  While I prefer everyone think, act and be an individual, I accept that some (and today, almost all) humans want to be sheeple and prey.

I say, let them.  ALL of them.

One extremely important point in this conversation is... the absolute necessity of the "no mans land" AKA "frontier"... even if that just means "the space between established settlements".

Without "no mans land", predators always rule, by necessity.  As long as there is no place individualists can go and NOT be subject to authoritarianism, the predators will completely rule, and the only dynamic that CAN exist is the "predator, parasite, producer, prey" dynamic that exists on planet earth today.

So, at least in principle, and perhaps by coincidence (extremely low population density) rather than design, the native populations of north and south america had it right.  Not to forgive the predatory authoritarian atrocities practiced in some of those "tribes", but at least anyone could escape if they had the confidence to make it alone... or to the next tribe or village.

So, there was never any justification for "a republic".  I mean, it is fundamentally and grossly offensive on the surface, and infinitely disingenuous to discover a previously undiscovered land that is already populated, and then establish any system that applies to anyone outside your own little "tribe" or "village".  The gringos could have fit into the americas just fine if they had any kind of ethics, and any kind of brains.  And if they had, we'd be living in a very different world today.  A vastly better one.

cpzimmon's picture

And if you really think about it, as the tribes and population grew, they wound up with something that looks our disjointed world today. The problem of society is that we are trousered apes. No less. That's where the real wisdom is. To know that we are a product of nature with only half a brain. Mother Nature always wins and she's not an ally of our narcissistic race.

wisehiney's picture

There is an extremely rate strain. But it exists. 

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Terrific follow-up and relevant historical information and truths for those interested that you provided.  Thank you.

What most Americans don't know or don't care to know about the Native American's in their interaction with the English is the fact that they were beyond accomodating and supportive in sharing the provisions with their white counterparts.  Let's face it, if they handn't been available for survival training especially in learning the indigenous food sources and agriculture techniques the settlers wouldn't have made it past Jamestown.

We know the stories of the Powhatan, Wampanoag, Shawnee and Cherokee that did everything they could to foster a relationship and exchange ideas, customs, traditions and technology with their white counterparts, but again to your writing we are and always have been fundamentally and grossly offensive, infinitely disingenous and to add to that one more lick "dangerous".  We've never learned from our own "superiority" and the very things that we always thought made us superior are the very underpinnings to our own destruction.

We destroy absolutely everything we touch and violate every negotiated settlement we sign up to and it's always been our modus to control. It's in our DNA unlike the Native Americans. The Indians tried to negotiate with many great leaders (Tecumseh) being one of my favorites, and tragically the last chapter was finished well before Westward expansion took place.

I posted something the other day on ZH and I mentioned the fact that if we had cherished the land and nature around us the way the Native Americans do there would be no devastation to our lakes and wildlife and most probable no Chernobyl's or Fukushima's or World Wars as we know them?

Yes the Native Americans fought among each other but what little is recorded about those facts didn't come from the settlers.  The English, French and their descendants were the masters of "divide and conquer" pitting one tribe against another to gain numerical advantage and that didn't exist before "whitey" made his stay.

And we ask ourselves today where Al Qaeda and the Taliban came from and why they are such a problem to us?

Exchange "savage" for "terrorist" and you have the answer.


honestann's picture

I wonder whether the source material still exists to re-construct the world that was BEFORE gringos arrived.  I mean, I assume we can't really trust anything written by gringos, for how can we know which if any of them was able to write without inserting their own biases and assumptions and brainwashing.  It really would be fascinating to know the details.  Even more fascinating would be to know how the world would have developed if the authoritarian and authority-worshiping gringos stayed in England and Europe, and only those looking for freedom came to the new world.  Sounds like a great premise for a mini-series or something.

I question your notion that gringos are dangerous due to their DNA.  I suspect it is more like brainwashing... growing up where a certain premise is almost universally accepted... you know, like the notions "king", "queen", "emperor", etc.  True, tribes had "leaders", but they were more like "head of the family", not ultimate owners and authorities of everything... essentially human versions of that fiction known as "god".

BTW, it really would be amazing to learn that american tribes almost never messed with each other [violently].  That would really be something nobody wants to hear... except those few of us who only want to know how it really was, no matter how that was.

Anusocracy's picture

Man, same as he ever was. Worthwhile read.

Book Description
The myth of the peace-loving "noble savage" is persistent and pernicious. Indeed, for the last fifty years, most popular and scholarly works have agreed that prehistoric warfare was rare, harmless, unimportant, and, like smallpox, a disease of civilized societies alone. Prehistoric warfare, according to this view, was little more than a ritualized game, where casualties were limited and the effects of aggression relatively mild. Lawrence Keeley's groundbreaking War Before Civilization offers a devastating rebuttal to such comfortable myths and debunks the notion that warfare was introduced to primitive societies through contact with civilization (an idea he denounces as "the pacification of the past").
Building on much fascinating archeological and historical research and offering an astute comparison of warfare in civilized and prehistoric societies, from modern European states to the Plains Indians of North America, War Before Civilization convincingly demonstrates that prehistoric warfare was in fact more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless than modern war. To support this point, Keeley provides a wide-ranging look at warfare and brutality in the prehistoric world. He reveals, for instance, that prehistorical tactics favoring raids and ambushes, as opposed to formal battles, often yielded a high death-rate; that adult males falling into the hands of their enemies were almost universally killed; and that surprise raids seldom spared even women and children. Keeley cites evidence of ancient massacres in many areas of the world, including the discovery in South Dakota of a prehistoric mass grave containing the remains of over 500 scalped and mutilated men, women, and children (a slaughter that took place a century and a half before the arrival of Columbus). In addition, Keeley surveys the prevalence of looting, destruction, and trophy-taking in all kinds of warfare and again finds little moral distinction between ancient warriors and civilized armies. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, he examines the evidence of cannibalism among some preliterate peoples.
Keeley is a seasoned writer and his book is packed with vivid, eye-opening details (for instance, that the homicide rate of prehistoric Illinois villagers may have exceeded that of the modern United States by some 70 times). But he also goes beyond grisly facts to address the larger moral and philosophical issues raised by his work. What are the causes of war? Are human beings inherently violent? How can we ensure peace in our own time? Challenging some of our most dearly held beliefs, Keeley's conclusions are bound to stir controversy.

wisehiney's picture

You descend from rarity. That is the burden of excellence that is harder to explain to your own blood than to a kindred one from another race/place. Truth just is, ain't it?

wisehiney's picture

Yeah, kinda yeah, there were some that were more truth than the world can still comprehend or believe. You would believe some new rare stuff if as soon as it came around to you. Hoping you meet it some day. The old code thing. 

q99x2's picture

The US can't mind anything. It is mindless. It has ZERO morality because as with any government it does not possess the qualities of an individual human being. A government is a social structure with the power to enforce the will of those that are in a position to manipulate it. The people of the US have only the power granted to them by the ones that control the government. If a time should come when the ones in control of the US, or any other government are disposed of then the government will operate according to another set of people in control.

Until a large number of people force those in control to behave responsibly we are all doomed. At this point those in control believe it would be easier to kill us than to change our minds.

ItsDanger's picture

Years ago, a case could be made for Middle East action due to the import of oil.  Currently, the US imports a small % of their oil from that region.  Therefore, not their problem anymore.

Trampy's picture
The Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion  C. Nathan DeWall Oxford University Press, Mar 7, 2013 - Psychology - 313 pages 0 Reviews Since its inception, the field of psychology has emphasized the importance of creating and maintaining social connections. Though theorists often disagree on how and why people form and maintain relationships, they agree on the importance of having a few positive and lasting relationships, and on the seriousness of social exclusion. The Oxford Handbook of Social Exclusion offers the most comprehensive body of social exclusion research ever assembled. Bringing together contributions from leading scholars from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives, this volume explores: - why people have a need to belong, why people exclude others, and how people respond to various forms of social exclusion. - research on how social exclusion affects people according to their stage of development, their involvement in romantic relationships, and within their work relationships. - the power of social exclusion in shaping a variety of behavioral and cognitive processes. - research on how to reduce the often negative consequences of social exclusion. This is an exciting time of proliferation in social exclusion research, as new findings spark new questions regarding the causes and consequences of social exclusion. Both stimulating and foundational, the current research and theories presented in this handbook represent a fertile area of study from which future insights can be gained.

« Less

BullyBearish's picture

depressed economy = abundant volunteer force

abundant volunteer force = willing tool for TPTB

willing tool for TPTB = not a sleepless night from using the willing tool


Like in professional football: "sure we know the activity is destructive to the participants but it serves our purpose and hell, nobody's making them do it and they're getting paid!"

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Instead of sending military, we should send normal citizens to foreign countries to see how other people live.

Having a populace of voting people who have never been out of their 20 mile radius is not healthy for a country and it's decision making processes.

MSO's picture

--For the First Time In 50 Years, a Majority of Americans Think the U.S. Should “Mind Its Own Business”--

Now the only problem remaining (as it has been for millennia) is what is our business.  Many folks on this forum (Yeah, you Ron Paul types) don't seem to care who appoints the hall monitors around the world. To you, it seems, one is as good as another.

I hate to tell you, but all you 'let the world take care of itself' folks are really pretty nice folks, but you don't have a clue. You're the type of guys that elected Obama twice, that got the ACA passed, that has allowed the establishment of a national police force, that has crushed the middle class is about to follow Venzuala into oblivion.

SuperRay's picture

The CIA has been 'taking care of the world' for 66 years.  They managed to make it totally FUBAR.  Maybe we should try something else.

libertarianadvocate's picture

"You're the type of guys that elected Obama twice, that got the ACA passed, that has allowed the establishment of a national police force"


Seriously, Ron Paul types did that?

Pass that joint dude, must be dank weed you got there.

MSO's picture

Ron Paul and his followers split and/or demonized the politicians and voters who could have prevented this communist claptrap. The Paulites propensity to embrace the modern day Stalins and Pol Pots through isolationism made it virtually impossible to vote for small government conservatives whoe were incorrectly seen as Paulite followers.

Emergency Ward's picture

What a crock of bullshit -- irrational and paranoid resentment of Ron Paul for his (usually) being on the sane side of foreign and domestic policy, something sorely lacking for the last few decades -- or longer.

It's not Ron Paul's fault that we have a plundering fascist welfare, police and military state -- nor his fault that tyrants exist in the world.  Go play the blame game elsewhere.

Blood Spattered Banner's picture

Only the most dense and ignorant still maintain that a Romney administration would have been different than GWB's 4th term (Obama's 2nd term).

Are you related to Mittens by chance?

marathonman's picture

Politicians who could have prevented this communist claptrap?  Did you see the RNC nominee for president in 2012?  He implemented Obamacare in the Peoples Republic of Massachusets before becoming the presidential nominee.  I doubt he would have repealed Obamacare if given the choice.  The fix is in, as they say.

And as far as embracing Stalin and Pol Pots, the CIA funds the opposition oftentimes to have an opponent for the US military and banking syndicates.  This isn't news to ZeroHedge readers but may come as a surprise to the casual reader.

BullyBearish's picture

Going to war has NEVER been about helping anyone...except the powers controlling forces.  Unforunately the SHEEPLE are gullible enough to buy any patriotic bull$hit that makes them feel better about themselves and go head long, repeatedly, against their own interests

shovelhead's picture

No Syrian ever called me Whitey.

Towgunner's picture

Mind you own business? Ha, that simple sentiment is long overdue for a much needed come back. International affairs? Definitely, for all the obvious reasons. Also, we need to re-adopt "mind your own business" within our social interactions and culture. This is apropos for issues such as this...Am I Christian? Answer: (slight modification of the above phrase, but, means the same thing) - none of your fu*king business. Believe it or not, minding your own business is and has been a remarkable solution for all the perceived social ills the progressives complain about. Trouble is, they're narcissistic, which means they want attention, e.g., for other people to mind their business. ??? Alas, this is consistent with any collective and their contemporary meme's like "village" and "community" etc., and also why they tend to abhor concepts like private property, since it empowers - mind your own business or f*ck off. My response: too bad so sad, grow up, oh and, worry about yourself which is to say, once again, "mind your own business". A few decades ago that's all you needed to say to get the freak to scurry off and cry in a corner singing no one loves me. Yet, after a gut check and a brush off, they're better off in the long run. 

wisehiney's picture

Do you possibly know of any old artillery officers?

stiler's picture

GW, you might be interested in this on Agenda 21

IdiocracyIsAlreadyHere's picture

Maybe there is (some) reason for optimism after all.  When a majority of the populace has shaken off 50+ years of Cold War and subsequent "War on Terra" propaganda and can finally recognize that citizens of other countries have rights as well we might have reach a turning point.

Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that all this does is tell TPTB that it's time for another false flag operation to scare the peons back in line.  Could we all be lucky enough that a majority sees it for what it is when it comes?  Once can only hope.

libertarianadvocate's picture

Hope and $2.50 will buy me a subway ride from Grand Central to Houston Street.


“Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.”-ThomasJefferson's picture



After the next false flag attack on our homeland, by our own government, people throughout the world will be cheering at our demise.

This orchestration all ends badly, with nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats controlling a world government with a single IMF currency... That the current crony thieves cobbled together.

Jumbotron's picture

Too bad it took 100's of thousands of lives just on our side....much less the other.....since the Korean War for the sheeple to finally figure it out.  And then on top of that.....the sheeple have the balls to say that "we support our troops".

Bullshit.  If you supported them you would not have supported the politicians and the government who sent them AND would have actively RIOTED to bring down the fucking politicians who sent them off to the meat grinder.......for what?

  Cheap cars from Korea,  Cheap furniture from Viet Nam, Cheap oil from the Middle East, Cheap drugs from Afghanistan.

Fuck you sheeple.

rsnoble's picture

I agree with a lot of that but thanks to the system a lot of young folks are just going into the services to better themselves.  A lot don't really know about all of this stuff and it certainly won't be taught.  Don't get me wrong i'm not saying they are dumb many of them are very smart.  I guess my point is the US needs an army......but it not the peoples fault that join under false pretenses that they are just there to protect the homeland and they are being led by sociopath leaders for their richy rich friends objectives.  So therefore one saying 'I support the troops' isn't really too much out of line.  We can't do without them because of other countries.  And off to your other ideas........yes we need a house cleaning BIG TIME.

Blood Spattered Banner's picture

Anyone who enlisted after 2003, and the revelation that the Iraq war was based on lies, is guilty of participating in illegal wars.

At that point, new enlistees agreed to serve under a Commander In Chief that broke nearly every law under the sun, and got away with it.  Remember, the military is all about the chain of command.  What Bush/Obama commands goes all the way downhill to the petty officers and privates. 

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

Pardon me.  But that's about the most ignorant set of statements I have ever heard.

The vast majority of American service men and women both know and understand that what they have been doing is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the MCOJ and that obeying unlawful orders puts both themselves and their Country at greater risk. If that were not the case than we would have a President and Congress that would never swear their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution before taking their place in office.  It's the Law!

Since the 9/11 Commission Report came out and organization(s) that have studied the demolition of the the 3 Towers in lower Manhattan they have been told by there superior(s) countless times to not view or discuss that information while in uniform which could risk their promotions or worse.  Why do you think whistleblowers like Bradley Manning are sitting in prison cells for doing the only necessary and responsible act in serving their Country that his Leadership both in the military and White House were guilty of war crimes and that they (as well as he) as a uniformed enlisted man are guilty of war crimes if they continue to do nothing in aiding and abetting wars of choice?

You say you "support the troops".  Then I also must assume by your statement that you endorse the continued wholesale rape, theft and murder after 12 long years when you know your Government are pathological liars is committing treason to it's own Constitution and the rules of engagement and treatys it signed up to under Geneva?

Our time is short and our military is and has been at a breaking point with it's morale.  Can't see them engaging the likes of Chinese and Russian troops conventionally who are better trained and more agile given where we've been the last decade. That leaves the other option and if it goes there we all lose.

You can't have it both ways. Educate yourself if you don't know whats been out there on the Net.  I'm sure you know about them but have chosen the "blue pill" like the vast majority of the men and women in the armed forces who will obey any command in return for a paycheck and an honorable discharge and that's the most tragic indictment of all on where we live in this Country right now.

Emergency Ward's picture

Ignorance is no longer an excuse for military service personnel.  Plenty of information is available and easy to find nowadays.

People who join the military might join because they can't find other employment, but they have to be honest with themselves: they are acting as paid killers (mercenaries) for the violent, aggressive, murderous, amoral Bush/Obama/MIC/etcetera war state -- the enlistees are not heroes nor are they protecting Americans by killing civilians around the world.  They shouldn't expect to be fawned over as valiant saviors of the American Way.

If they are killed in action they die a senseless death.  If they are injured, they suffer senselessly.

Question: Would you bomb a child in Africa for any of the following names?  Dick Cheney, Diane Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama.  They all want to send your children off to kill.

Omen IV's picture

well said - why do they join the military? - the zip codes in Manhattan have the lowest enlistment rates in the country - why? because it doesnt make sense  - why would you risk your life for intangibles and when the tangibles once in the military are a joke and after you get out ? 

if they  (NYorkers) dont want to protect the epicenter of the WTC - why would you?

people, do some homework before you join up - read about General Smedley and what went on 100 years ago for military service- nothing has changed!

kurt's picture

Intervention and war starts in the imagination. Watch Homeland, Saul's character. If there was nobody IN POWER busily imagining what the other (bad) guy is doing and trying to outsmart him, beat him to the draw, there would be no "initial" injury to respond to. Sure nations have done suspicious things to one another but the problem is the perseverence of hate and suspicion, and the SPECIALISTS we use to scare us into getting our juices flowing. The second problem is sociopathic money grubbing: where the two meet there is war and subterfuge.

Don't empower paranoid freaks. Expose the greedy. Draw a line between the last time somebody hurt you and a new NOW and pretend we, as a species, can somehow evolve.

SuperRay's picture

Really? A television show.  Like the CIA is anything but a bunch of criminals whose agenda is running and controlling every country in the world?  Like the FBI is not run by psychopaths?


btw, lots of guys join the armed services because they want to find out what it's like to kill someone.  All that warm, tear jerking patriotism from world war two is as dead as JFK.  It's totally fucked up, dude, and it's gonna get worse.

Global Observer's picture

Perhaps because their current set of interventions are not bringing them any tangible benefits. If Obama engages in a "liberation" or "stabilisation" or some such thing and at the same time they see their standard of living going up and future looking bright, you will very quickly see huge percentages becoming fans of "executing America's responsibility" or whatever else they choose to call their messing with others.

The Burning Planet's picture

I don't like to nitpick but... prior to Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of American people (more than 80%) were opposed to the US getting involved in the War. It was a real problem for Roosevelt who desperately wanted to be in that fight.

 That said we are a war weary nation. Obama needs to get a clue and stop trying to involve us in foreign escapades like Syria. The American people are sick of the MIC going around playing chessmaster with other nations. Enough already. Give it a fucking rest.