You're actually overspecifying the word. If you use violence as a means to advance a political idea or position, you are a terrorist. You don't need to be part of some organization. In fact, terrorists don't generally work as a large organization but rather as solo operatives or in small cells.
Fighting somebody who is attempting to force you to do something, such as fight as war that you don't believe in, is just.
Do they really fight to protect our freedom? Or do they fight because that's what they get paid for?
EU countries still pay for the Marshal Plan (WWII).
Secondly, weapons manufacturing is a huge part of the domestic trade economy; without that much war, there wouldn't be that much demand for weapon manufacturing (or other military services provided by civilian companies) which would result in a huge loss of jobs, for one thing. But also trade with other countries (both selling weapons and buying parts) would be impacted severely. The US cannot give up military action; it's trying to balance military economy with non-military economy, and the balance is pretty fragile.
Edit: Let's also not forget that military service is one of the few ways in which the really poor can escape the crab bucket. Escaping the crab bucket is also great for the general economy.
Last edited by Stir; 2013-02-07 at 02:43 PM.
I feel like this is probably true.
I feel like you haven't spent 30 seconds thinking about what the public reaction would be if the government started drafting citizens into the military to go to war with Iraq, Iran, or whoever. It would be enormous. Some might even call it a 'revolution.'
Politicians don't have complete control over everything, yet.
The war in Iraq was first called "Operation Iraqi Liberation", but was quickly changed after they realized it spelled "OIL". The soldiers are not at fault for buying the propaganda that's being fed to them on a daily basis, they are honest people "defending" their country; it's the leaders/politicians that apparently believe that war and oil is a good stimulant for the world economy and its growth.
If 'we' (meaning corporations) drilled for oil here, it would mean paying American workers with benefits and all that entails.
On the other hand, paying off politicians to go to war over it, (at the tax payer's expense, not the company's) and then getting paid to rebuild what our own military has destroyed (which is exactly what they do, at tax payer's expense) and then charging the local population for those services (which is exactly what they do) such as water, or oil fields, (getting oil much cheaper than otherwise possible) and having a monopoly over said service...
Yes, the second option is a lot more profitable. That's also what has been happening for many years now.
I think we all know who the "real" terrorists in this world are, but in a world that relies so heavily on Oil, I guess some countries just have to take action into their own hands to acquire it. It just makes me laugh that the so-called terrorists decide to take their anger out on certain countries just because they have freedom? I mean, that's the dumbest excuse ever to want to go and incite violence there, I don't buy it but sheep will be sheep heh.
I would say this: you can question the motives of a government and what they do with their army all you want, but don't go around disrespecting the guys who would be standing between you and the bullets defending your ass if the time came.