Foreign policy: the United States to war addiction?

The founding of the United States of America, the eastern North America is only on the coast of 13 narrow colonial weak consortium. After a century later, the original 13 states has been expanded to the west coasts of continents, for aboriginal people or conquer, or perish; At the same time it also in and Mexico on baseball hats war, attempting to seize Texas, new Mexico, Arizona and California. The United States experienced a long and painful civil war, get some overseas colonies, and in the second half of the two world wars take part in the game. But since around 1900 become an important since the country, the United States has played more than ten games real war, and involved in military conflict is countless.
Even so, americans have believe that is a peace-loving nation, we also obviously will not be his country called the "warrior country" or "militarism" country. Teddy is likely to be the last President will be a popular war should be regarded as the President (he once said "compared to most energetic peace, a mlb jerseys long and just war to the souls of the benefits more"), and in the next President in a war always show grudgingly posture, common claim that war is a kind of the ultimate means.
In 2008, the American people chose barack Obama as President, at least part of the reason is because they think Obama with his predecessor in many ways is quite different, especially for his armed forces attitude. Almost all people know that George w. bush in Iraq has launched a stupid and without the necessary war, and the next to improper disposal and the errors exceeding enlarge (Afghanistan war also is so). So the americans chose a to bush's Iraq war opposed, and the ability to put the U.S. war spending in our resources within the limit of the candidate. The most important is, the American people think that Obama will be in "how to use force in the place where the" this a series of problems more thoughtful, and he really understand the most brutal policy tools in application of restrictions. The Norwegian Nobel awards committee seems to think so, too, they will peace prize awarded to Obama, not because he has done, and just because the committee wants him what will to do this.
But just two years, we found himself once again in the scale of the fighting. Obama since the office, not only promoted the United States in Afghanistan to the intervention of the scale, but also in Libya and launched a war. And in Iraq, we are armed intervention to Libya's real intention is to make its at gunpoint under threat to change the political system. At first we hope most of the guns should be in European countries of the hand, or in opposition to Mr Qaddafi's rebels militants hands, but as time goes on we become clear to see, the U.S. military forces, cia agent and foreign weapons supply will become the necessary conditions to complete the task.
Worse, as of the university of Texas Alan cooper mann and BBS for Chicago Steve chapman mentioned, just a little situation, we will find that the so-called "the United States must action to stop Libya tyrant Mr Qaddafi continue to thousands of killing innocent civilians of class and west" this statement simply doesn't hold water. While all the people would agree with Mr Qaddafi is a cruel ruler, but his army and not in any a its already recovered in the city on the mass killing deliberately, and he in class and west out of this claim to a city of revenge against the threat of violence against those who still ruled him, not innocent bystanders. There is no doubt, Mr Qaddafi is a basically hopeless tyrant, but so-called will "defile the whole world of conscience" (Obama language) the mass killing happened is extremely unlikely.
The war will not achieve the purpose of the book, if the U.S. and its Allies is able to save a life or will put more life into it, for now, still is still not clear. But we really should question is: why do this kind of thing happen? Why different presidents will always make things like that? Our voters in 2008 seems to have tired of war, but in 2009, a war in 2011 and to upgrade, launched a new war, unmoved, the change is how to produce? The two political parties haggle over every penny of the government budget, but sit back in the new war President every day to spend $100 million is how to return a responsibility? What the hell happened here?
see more:Japan why men are very lewd

Ukraine “color revolution” and lost five years