Trump's 'Wars To Watch': The West's Perpetual War Machine, Regardless Of President
📰 THE STORY: The Independent speculates on potential global conflict flashpoints in a hypothetical second Trump term, framing wars as a product of one man's whims rather than systemic geopolitical strategies. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The notion of a president _causing_ wars ignores decades of US foreign policy. For instance, the US-backed coup in Chile (1973), the
CIA's arming of Saddam Hussein (1980s), or the 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya (2011) under different administrations, all show a consistent pattern of intervention regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. 'Wars to watch' implies choice, when often, the seeds of conflict are sown years, even decades, prior by bipartisan policies and alliances like NATO's expansion eastward since 1999, which
greatly contributed to tensions in Ukraine. Double Standard: The media frames potential US military actions as a unique danger under Trump, yet largely normalizes ongoing conflicts and interventions under other presidents. Compare the critical scrutiny hypothetically applied to Trump's 'isolationism' with the near-total media consensus on the $100B+ arms poured into Ukraine since 2022 under Biden,
or the consistent $3.8 billion in annual military aid to Israel, even as it conducts a genocide killing over 40,000 in Gaza (2023-24). One leader is 'unpredictable,' while others are simply 'leading.' Follow the Money: Wars are incredibly profitable. The military-industrial complex, represented by giants like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, saw their stocks soar after the Ukraine conflict began