“We have to fight them over there or we’ll be fighting them over here.” I remember that line. They said about the wars in the Middle East, they said it about Vietnam, they said it about Korea. “If we don’t win, there’ll be a 9/11 every day.” But we lost, and somehow there hasn’t been another 9/11. “Vietnam is a domino, if we don’t stop them here, they’ll spread communism to more and more countries.” But we didn’t stop them there and they focused on rebuilding and self-defense.
Every major conflict the US has been involved in since WWII, top officials have evoke WWII and the Nazis. Many of those conflicts were wars of aggression, often seeking to prop up fascists.
If the US military was actually about defense, it could easily be cut in half. We’d still be spending more on it than any other country in the world. The US spends more than the next 9 countries combined and it is the fascist threat that other countries have to defend against.
Yes, sometimes the only way to solve a problem is through force. But it’s also true that when you have this massive hammer, everything looks like a nail. We have this whole industry built off that profits from war and needs a constant state of war (or at least threats) to justify its existence, and if there aren’t any threats, they’ll create them.
Once all the people involved in the previous unjustified wars is in prison, then if the people who threw them in prison want me to believe that there’s a genuine threat, I’ll consider it. But I will never support US military involvement in any conflict until that time, regardless of circumstances.
Preach brother. I agree sometimes things need to happen by force, but it’s far and few between. This war was a joke to distract from Epstein child trafficking bullshit.
Forgot to mention I’m not form the US, so my opinion is war AGAINST the US. But starting with Embargo first, then retaliating with maximum force if the US were to try and break the Embargo or attack in any way.
“We have to fight them over there or we’ll be fighting them over here.” I remember that line. They said about the wars in the Middle East, they said it about Vietnam, they said it about Korea. “If we don’t win, there’ll be a 9/11 every day.” But we lost, and somehow there hasn’t been another 9/11. “Vietnam is a domino, if we don’t stop them here, they’ll spread communism to more and more countries.” But we didn’t stop them there and they focused on rebuilding and self-defense.
Every major conflict the US has been involved in since WWII, top officials have evoke WWII and the Nazis. Many of those conflicts were wars of aggression, often seeking to prop up fascists.
If the US military was actually about defense, it could easily be cut in half. We’d still be spending more on it than any other country in the world. The US spends more than the next 9 countries combined and it is the fascist threat that other countries have to defend against.
Yes, sometimes the only way to solve a problem is through force. But it’s also true that when you have this massive hammer, everything looks like a nail. We have this whole industry built off that profits from war and needs a constant state of war (or at least threats) to justify its existence, and if there aren’t any threats, they’ll create them.
Once all the people involved in the previous unjustified wars is in prison, then if the people who threw them in prison want me to believe that there’s a genuine threat, I’ll consider it. But I will never support US military involvement in any conflict until that time, regardless of circumstances.
Preach brother. I agree sometimes things need to happen by force, but it’s far and few between. This war was a joke to distract from Epstein child trafficking bullshit.
also insider trading of the trump family about oil and arms companies
Forgot to mention I’m not form the US, so my opinion is war AGAINST the US. But starting with Embargo first, then retaliating with maximum force if the US were to try and break the Embargo or attack in any way.