What's new

Never Trump

The video at this link offers some history behind the rise of Isis. Certainly leaving so much armament behind in Iraq was one heck of a gift, but the fact seems to be that we've created many of the enemies whom we've later attacked.

https://truthinmedia.com/truth-in-media-the-origin-of-isis/

Edit: something else that may not be as well known as perhaps it should be is how many ISIS leaders are former officers in Saddam Hussein's army, and the Baathist Party. We probably should have handled that aspect of post Hussein better, by not marginalizing those key military people. It's what makes ISIS part terror group, part army....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html
That was a well done piece. I agree that we played a major role in creating these groups. Unfortunately, as the video demonstrates, that situation has continued under the current president. ISIS rose to power using weapons that Obama simply abandoned to them in the withdrawal. It was handled horribly.
 
Has our involvement in anyone's wars since World War II been of any help? I'm not a historian and have no idea. But I can't think of any.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Has our involvement in anyone's wars since World War II been of any help? I'm not a historian and have no idea. But I can't think of any.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
I think we might have helped kuwait. But still. I agree with your general point.
 
Has our involvement in anyone's wars since World War II been of any help? I'm not a historian and have no idea. But I can't think of any.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

This is an interesting question. Yes and no to all. Depends on who you are. The Iraq war helped the Kurds but not the Ba'ath party, Korean war helped the south but not the north, Gulf war helped Kuwait but not Iraq...
 
This is an interesting question. Yes and no to all. Depends on who you are. The Iraq war helped the Kurds but not the Ba'ath party, Korean war helped the south but not the north, Gulf war helped Kuwait but not Iraq...
That makes sense. It would be difficult to assess degrees. Still, I wish we would spend our resources on our own defense and not on offense for others, especially in cultures we do not seem to understand, like the Congo in the 60s (I just read The Poisonwood Bible), or Somalia in the 90s, or the Middle East ever. I know we have a big military that we like to keep busy and war is good for the economy, but I wish the USA were smarter about it all.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
That makes sense. It would be difficult to assess degrees. Still, I wish we would spend our resources on our own defense and not on offense for others, especially in cultures we do not seem to understand, like the Congo in the 60s (I just read The Poisonwood Bible), or Somalia in the 90s, or the Middle East ever. I know we have a big military that we like to keep busy and war is good for the economy, but I wish the USA were smarter about it all.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

The "economy" also depends on perspective. If you work for Lockheed Martin yeah it's good for the economy. For the rest of us war eats up resources that could otherwise be used to improve our standard of living. We could use those resources to improve our domestic infrastructure, provide healthcare, or use them in the private sector to provide better cheaper products.

I think that Orwell framed warfare well in 1984

excerpts from Chapter 3 War is Peace of Goldstein's Book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society...

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society...

For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance...

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built.
 
I'm sure you'll have no problem finding articles and video backing up your claim that right wingers were saying this, then. I'll wait.

I was trying to tell Doug Wright we should stay outta Iraq, back in the day. But he cut me off so Sen Bennet could come on to push NAFTA.

You probably are confused. You think Doug Wrigh and Sen Bennet were on the "right", but that class of thinkers are never "right". They are globalists, CFR stooges, and minced meat for the real progressives, that's all.

I don't think that arbitrary classification of "right" and "left" exists in any real meaning, it is just a rhetorical division of thought, and most humans have more than one thought.

I doubt Game would understand, either.

Ron Paul happens to be "right" on the constitutional issue of American Government's duty to American Citizens taking priority over our willingness to be the world's do-gooder, or policeman, or the prime pusher for world governance.

I know Hillary will do all the wrong things, and Trump likely will never understand the idea, any better than Game or Joe.

Trump will stop the wholesale sacking of America for a few years, but unless we can get people to understand that our government has been corrupted by vain and foolish visions that are not properly it's business, we are going to become a Venezuela.
 
Trump is the closest think to a true libertarian we have ever had so I am voting The T.

Every idea he has is not good it is great. Close boarders. Bring jobs back home. Get out of Iraq. Cut taxes. Fix social security and obaminationcare. Scare Putin into submission. Hell I bet T will bare his chest and ride a horse while wielding a 50 millimeter machine gun on his first day in office just to send the message that USA is no longer *******.
 
Trump is the closest think to a true libertarian we have ever had so I am voting The T.

Every idea he has is not good it is great. Close boarders. Bring jobs back home. Get out of Iraq. Cut taxes. Fix social security and obaminationcare. Scare Putin into submission. Hell I bet T will bare his chest and ride a horse while wielding a 50 millimeter machine gun on his first day in office just to send the message that USA is no longer *******.

welcome to the good guys.
 
Trump is the closest think to a true libertarian we have ever had so I am voting The T.

Every idea he has is not good it is great. Close boarders. Bring jobs back home. Get out of Iraq. Cut taxes. Fix social security and obaminationcare. Scare Putin into submission. Hell I bet T will bare his chest and ride a horse while wielding a 50 millimeter machine gun on his first day in office just to send the message that USA is no longer *******.

A true libertarian wants to build a wall between nations?

I'd be interested to hear what it is you think a libertarian is? To me it's a person who values the liberty of the individual above all else. I know to most people it's someone who doesn't want to pay taxes, doesn't want huge corporations to be responsible for their actions, doesn't' want to protect individuals from the actions of said corporations, and maybe I'm the one who's wrong and those things are what libertarianism is, but it certainly isn't how I see it.
 
That makes sense. It would be difficult to assess degrees. Still, I wish we would spend our resources on our own defense and not on offense for others, especially in cultures we do not seem to understand, like the Congo in the 60s (I just read The Poisonwood Bible), or Somalia in the 90s, or the Middle East ever. I know we have a big military that we like to keep busy and war is good for the economy, but I wish the USA were smarter about it all.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app

I agree. Pull out of the world minus our formal allies like NATO, Japan, Australia, Philippines... Then make those countries step up their game (S. Korea already has but others like most NATO members have not) and put more money and training into their defense. Reduce the # of world wide bases and bring more men and women home. Spend that money here.
 
I agree. Pull out of the world minus our formal allies like NATO, Japan, Australia, Philippines... Then make those countries step up their game (S. Korea already has but others like most NATO members have not) and put more money and training into their defense. Reduce the # of world wide bases and bring more men and women home. Spend that money here.

Yep, reducing military spending is key. With this said Hilary scares the crap out of me. I'm pretty sure she wants Assad's head, she was thrilled about ending Gaddafi's regime. Libya was doing well relatively speaking.

She comes through to me as a psycho in a position of power.
 
A true libertarian wants to build a wall between nations?

I'd be interested to hear what it is you think a libertarian is? To me it's a person who values the liberty of the individual above all else. I know to most people it's someone who doesn't want to pay taxes, doesn't want huge corporations to be responsible for their actions, doesn't' want to protect individuals from the actions of said corporations, and maybe I'm the one who's wrong and those things are what libertarianism is, but it certainly isn't how I see it.

Since when does not national sovereignty matter to libertarians? I already responded to u saying there are several brands of libertarianism asking which brand u are but u ignored the question.

I think Trump is the kind of libertarian who wants to protect the liberties and livelihoods of those inside are boarder. Boarder fences and target immigration screening toward Muslims. High tariffs on Chinese. Repeal nafta. Basically what the founding fathers fought for and won.
 
I agree. Pull out of the world minus our formal allies like NATO, Japan, Australia, Philippines... Then make those countries step up their game (S. Korea already has but others like most NATO members have not) and put more money and training into their defense. Reduce the # of world wide bases and bring more men and women home. Spend that money here.

Nope. Henry Kissinger was right Did not someone just say none of us are free unless we are all free and equal? Well that does not stop at are borders. We need to invade Russia Saudi Arabia China and make glass of the Middle East . Only then will we be truly free after we become atheist zombies w no ethics that let men into women's restrooms.
 
Since when does not national sovereignty matter to libertarians? I already responded to u saying there are several brands of libertarianism asking which brand u are but u ignored the question.

I think Trump is the kind of libertarian who wants to protect the liberties and livelihoods of those inside are boarder. Boarder fences and target immigration screening toward Muslims. High tariffs on Chinese. Repeal nafta. Basically what the founding fathers fought for and won.

https://www.lp.org/platform

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
 
Back
Top