In a striking chapter toward the end of the first part of Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes described the natural condition of mankind as a war in which "every man is Enemy to every man," 
---Wikipedia

The rationales that states use for going to war that seem obvious to me are, gaining:

1. Territory
2. Warm Seaports and Access to Oceans
3. Natural Resources
4. Financial Resources
5. Human Resources
6. Settlement of Disputes (With layers upon layers of history)
7. Settlement of Dire Threats (The Hate Factor?)

Wars are extremely expensive enterprises, and the number of holes money has to be poured into include:

1. Industrial preparations for producing war goods, including factory builds as needed,
2. Land acquisitions for bases, factories, and airfields,
3. Troop buildup, including feeding, clothing, sheltering, and paying the troops, then training,
4. Field practice for combined warfare,
5. Buildup of Air Forces, purchase of large numbers of aircraft of all types, pilot training,
6. Buildup of the Navy, purchase of ships of all types for the expected use. Training of crews,
7. Tons of munitions and missiles for offense and defense.
8. Assurance of oil and other energy sources to power the forces.

To afford these ambitious goals, most nations turn to the banking industry for heavy loans. This goes both ways for the bankers! They feed money to both sides!

The buildup phase can be as short as 3 or 4 years prior to hostilities beginning and continues throughout the war to the last.

The bankers are the real winners of the wars, pocketing obscene profits from their wily loans. Their investments in various industries also include forms of close partnerships with the industrial leaders in the nations involved, both of whom stand to make a lot of money as long as the war progresses.

Some industries are able to sell material to both sides in the war, doubling their profit streams and motivating them to keep both sides of the war able to continue to fight. Then too, some industries get bombed out of existence sooner or later, but the leaders have already stashed their profits with the bankers in other nations safe from harm.

Looked at this from afar, one can wonder whether the bankers and their cohorts deliberately stirred up the fevers of war on both sides, and then offered their services to underwrite the efforts. Or did the states ferment war mostly by themselves (knowing, of course, that the bankers and industry are listening well), and only turned to the bankers when their own resources were in danger of being tapped out?

We citizens probably never find out the truth of the origins of a war, whether in our government's ambitions, the banker's greed, the hate factor, or simply fear of the opposition. Perhaps it is always all of the above. All the war needs is a spark of some kind from one side for it to take off in all of its gory killing details for the people and troops who bear the brunt of the misery.

Another source for stirring up war fever are the clandestine services of the nations, and the services of other nations that find the idea of a war to their nation's benefit. One can see the hand of the CIA in a number of wars around the globe, and the international sales of Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop/Grumman and the other war material industry in the US growing accordingly.

One can dimly perceive the shadow an almost invisible hand directing these world affairs for the profit of unknown string-pullers. The players seem to be:

1. Corrupt Nations/Corrupt Leaders
2. Immoral and Greedy Bankers and their Cohorts
3. Greedy Industrial Leaders
4. The Clandestine World
5. The Arms Merchants

Something like this operates in the US, and it is highly likely that our deep state is connected to the ultimate rulers of the game: the international bankers, and hence the many other deep states that exist worldwide.

One could ask what happens at the Bilderberg gatherings in the US, and what relation exists between Bilderberg members with the Council for Foreign Relations, or CFR membership?

This super-deep world state would be extremely hard to destroy, as it is made up of many autonomous cells and sovereign nations. It is a many-headed hydra. If you kill one, others will compensate for the loss, replace the men convicted, and their business would go on as usual.

It is also possible that knowing too much about this suspected world organization is extremely dangerous to your health.

The $50 Lesson:
Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my
neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their
dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what
she wanted to be when she grew up.
She said she wanted to be President someday.
Both of her parents, Democratic Party members, were standing there so
I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you
would do?"
She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow...what a worthy goal!" I
said..."But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!"
"What do you mean?" she replied. So I told her,"You can come over to
my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge,and I'll pay
you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless
guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a
new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight
in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do
the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.
If you know any Republicans that would get a chuckle out of this,
share it with them. Most Democrats will just delete it, I guess the
logic escapes them.

There is now an agreement on two 2024 presidential debates, one in June with CNN and one in September with ABC.

Former President Donald Trump accepted two more, proposed by Fox and then on Telemundo/NBC, but Joe Biden has not agreed to those. He obviously only wants debates on networks he thinks he can influence:

“The debate about debates is over,” a Biden campaign official said. “No more games.”

In a statement Friday night, the Trump campaign responded by blasting Biden's decision.

"The Telemundo/NBC debate would be widely watched by Hispanic voters, but Biden’s handlers are petrified to allow him to defend his disastrous record," campaign spokeswoman Danielle Alvarez said. "Crooked Joe Biden is too 'cobarde' to address the Hispanic community and answer for his failures on the debate stage!"

It's been the Biden team that's been playing the "games," and trying to set all kinds of restrictions and only agreeing to the things that he thinks help him. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also claimed that he would qualify for the first CNN debate; Biden had said he didn’t want Kennedy included. So, what happens there remains to be seen.

Trump spoke at the Minnesota GOP’s annual Lincoln Reagan fundraising dinner on Friday.

While he identified a debate requirement he wanted of his own. Trump is now asking for what I think is a very important requirement for the debate — a drug test. He said he thought Biden was going to be “jacked up.”

"He can't talk, he can't walk, can't find his way off a stage. Can’t put two sentences together,” Trump said.

“Although he has agreed to debate, so I don’t know, maybe they know something. He’s going to be so jacked up for those debates, you watch.

"I'm going to demand a drug test," he declared.

"I don’t want him coming in like the State of the Union,” Trump said. “He was high as a kite.” By the end of the evening, Trump said, Biden was “exhausted.” “We’re going to demand a drug test.”

According to Politico, Ron Klein -- who runs the Biden debate camp -- wouldn't respond when asked if any illegal substances were used as part of their debate prep.

That says it all right there, doesn't it? They can't answer that question. That should send off honking red alarm bells. And actually, I would have made the question broader: Are any drugs -- illegal or not -- being used to help enhance his performance?

One has to wonder if this is a requirement, whether Biden would be able to comply and would he blow off the debate instead? I think Biden may simply say "no more rules," even though he's the one who put all kinds of restrictions that favor him on the debates. But then, the Trump campaign can call him out for being a coward and keep raising questions about being "juiced."

The only good thing for Biden may be that people have such low expectations for him if he walks across the stage and doesn't fall off, the media will spin it as a win.

The problem with Joe is he's still Joe. No matter how much they try to help him, that's the biggest weight around his neck.