A new approach to solving the US foreign problems is to use a method from the novel by Joseph Heller "Catch 22".
One of the schemes hatched by the corrupt mess officer Milo Minderbinder is to contract missions for the Germans, fighting on both sides in the battle at Orvieto, and bombing his own squadron at Pianosa. At one point Minderbinder orders his fleet of aircraft to attack the American base where he lives, killing many American officers and enlisted men.
The reason for this is the good profit to be made from this.
So I suggest that the US armed forces should be contracted by the military industrial complex to bomb America.
This would ensure the thriving industry would have a continued demand and make big profits..
It could also be subcontracted to Isis,Alquieda and any other anti US terror group, saving them the need to do it themselves.
It would bring peace to the rest of the World, which would no longer have the US invading them and killing their citizens as "collateral" damage.
It would cause alarm to the US citizens at the receiving end of the bombing but the economy would be on the upturn and they would all have jobs, new cars and be able to afford a house.

I think you might be on to something there...

“The war, therefore if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that the hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war," therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist. The peculiar pressure that is exerted on human beings between the Neolithic Age and the early twentieth century has disappeared and has been replaced by something quite different. The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This--although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense--is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”

- 1984, George Orwell

The war in Iraq is because of ..of.. um..9/11. That was a Jewish -Pentagon-Bush profit-centre election scheme kick-butt . ISIS is buying Russian enriched dirty yellow cake , which may really boost Wall street military complexes.

Nickname nick

If you mean by your comment that the twin towers atrocity was
Carried out by America to get George Bush reelected,
Then how do you explain the fact that Osama Binladen sent videos
To Al Jazerra television with himself claiming he masterminded and financed
The attack on the twin towers.

He also at this time using his al qeuda fellow terrorists started the trend of cutting
Peoples throats on public television. The screaming as they cut one blokes throat was so horrific that the scene was edited from the public.

I think people who start believing in American conspiracy theory's because it suits their ideological set of beliefs have very short memories.

Robert Le Page

I disagree with your suggestion that America is profiting
By waging war. In Fact it is costing billions and billions of dollars
To wage war, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a disaster in regard
To the billions of dollars wasted that could have been spent
At home in America. Maybe if America had taken territorial spoils and seized
The Iraqi oils wells instead of handing them back to the Iraqi government
Then maybe you could say they benefitted from the territorial spoils of war but this was
Not the case.

This why I say America Australia and Europe should have nothing to do with the United nations. We are always the ones that have to pay the biggest price in trying to be the World policeman. Normally wars and that includes civil wars are fought over control of territory,(countries)
And rich territorial resources like oil. The West spends billions on war but in trying to be a United Nations goodie two shoes, doesn't even get to keep the oil wells.
Now where's the good side of the deal for the West in forking out billions and blowing up billion dollar bombs and missiles and then not getting to keep the territorial spoils.
Not to mention the dying of our young fit sons and daughters.

Cherful,

"I disagree with your suggestion that America is profiting
By waging war. In Fact it is costing billions and billions of dollars
To wage war, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were a disaster in regard
To the billions of dollars wasted that could have been spent"

Bush and Co funnelled no end of taxpayer funds into the war... enriching arms manufacturers, etc.

Bush and Co funnelled oodles of taxpayer funds into infrastructure rebuilding, security, catering, to support troops, etc in Iraq to companies like Haliburton and Blackwater.

So the short story is that the Iraq war was a great opportunity for the Bush administration to funnel public funds into the pockets of private corporations and contractors.

End of story....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_for_Sale:_The_War_Profiteers

Poirot,

Why shouldn't America employ American companies to rebuild Iraq.
Conquerors don't usually rebuild the countries they just spent
Billions fighting and having their soldiers killed as well.

It doesn't make sense that they would pay somebody else to do it.

By employing their own companies at least they can recoup some of the money used to
Fund the war, back in taxation of those companies. Why the hell would they give the job to a foreign company.

It's just common sexnse, not what was said here by a couple of posters, that they started a war that cost billions,
just so a couple of companies could make a profit.

Cherful,

You are so right.

They paid out public money to knock Iraq down...and they paid out more public money to corporations s and contractors to build it up again.

And those corps and contractors had a ball screwing the American taxpayer and profiteering.

Don't bother attempting to portray it thus:

"By employing their own companies at least they can recoup some of the money used to
Fund the war, back in taxation of those companies. Why the hell would they give the job to a foreign company."

And this:

"It's just common sexnse, not what was said here by a couple of posters, that they started a war that cost billions,
just so a couple of companies could make a profit."

Of course it was more than enriching private companies...but enriching private companies by opening the public coffers was part of it. Though the Bush administration aimed for unfettered access to Iraq's resources - which is why they cooked up the war, and ignored the UN's advice of WMDs.

It was a disaster, both financially for the US and structurally for the Iraqis.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/jun/09/the-secret-way-to-war/

"By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

Bush had decided to “justify” the war “by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”

Already “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

"....WMD threat was indeed the Bush Admin's main thrust in formulating an invasion - an invasion which had already been decided upon even as Bush was delivering ultimatums to avert invasion.

"...Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy..."

In Iraq's case, it was unfettered access they were after - and which they achieved.

'Twas America's decision to steal the Iraqi oil revenue to fund the rebuilding of Iraq by American companies at ridiculously high prices that did more to turn the Iraqis against the Americans (and Australians, British and everyone else who took part in the invasion) than anything else, as it demonstrated the occupying army were there to exploit, not to liberate.

Cherful,

"By employing their own companies at least they can recoup some of the money used to
Fund the war, back in taxation of those companies..."

You might like to know how the Bush admin funded the Iraq war - and why they decided to pull out when it became common knowledge.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/11/us-public-defrauded-hidden-cost-iraq-war

"The most striking fact about the cost of the war in Iraq has been the extent to which it has been kept "off the books" of the government's ledgers and hidden from the American people. This was done by design. A fundamental assumption of the Bush administration's approach to the war was that it was only politically sustainable if it was portrayed as near-costless to the American public and to key constituencies in Washington. The dirty little secret of the Iraq war – one that both Bush and the war hawks in the Democratic party knew, but would never admit – was that the American people would only support a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein if they could be assured that they would pay almost nothing for it."

"The most obvious way in which the true cost of this war was kept hidden was with the use of supplemental appropriations to fund the occupation. By one estimate, 70% of the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2003 and 2008 were funded with supplemental or emergency appropriations approved outside the Pentagon's annual budget. These appropriations allowed the Bush administration to shield the Pentagon's budget from the cuts otherwise needed to finance the war, to keep the Pentagon's pet programs intact and to escape the scrutiny that Congress gives to its normal annual regular appropriations."

So all very sneaky and underhand...and I doubt Bush and his cronies would be yodelling from the rooftops that raining money upon private US contractors was a good thing because taxes could be recouped in long run.

Lol!