We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Foxmuldar • 5 months ago

Got to give Trump and Rand Paul credit, they tried to end wars. Don't forget Trump got a peace deal in the middle east. Not even mentioned here. He also continues to bring troops home and don't forget he wants to draw down the number of troops stationed in Germany. Heck I was in the US Army during the Viet Nam war and was stationed in Kornweisteim germany. Troops are still in Germany. It's time to let the Germans carry more of their own defense.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

U.S. troops are not in Germany to protect them....it's to make sure the German government and the German people do what Washington orders. Or else.

The same everywhere else in the world.
They don't call it American imperialism for nothing.

The CIA controls Germany's news media...all of it and any journalist who dares defy what they're told often ends up being either censored or dead.

Flávio Gomes • 5 months ago

I see little to no opposition to endless war in the US. On the contrary. I'm surrounded by soldier worshippers telling me I owe my salvation to Christ and to the American Soldier, in pretty much equal shares.

Foxmuldar • 5 months ago

Soldiers don't make decisions to go to war, Politicians do. Don't mock the soldiers. You must be one of those that spit in the face of American soldiers when they returned from Viet Nam. I don't know any military personal other then maybe Generals that want more wars. Trash the generals not the recruits.

sambor71 • 5 months ago

I was anti war in my youth during the peak of the Viet Nam war. I witnessed troops being spat on when they returned from Viet Nam. That left me bewildered. At the time I pointed out the fact that the vast majority were either drafted or enlisted in the (false) hope that they could get a non combat deployment. Fact is the soldiers were victims of the same war mongering establishment we see regaining complete control of the USA.

Advice to Americans: save your spit and contempt to those that deserve it.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

The Viet Nam war proved nothing except how to murder a million Vietnamese people and 56,000 American boys who got sucked into that meat grinder. The Vietnamese people continue to suffer from the poison dumped on their country. A total and complete failure, doomed from the start. F*** LBJ and McNamara!. My older brother was 1st Air Cavalry/heli pilot who was poisoned by Agent Orange, died a few years back from brain cancer.
If I ever get out to Texas, I'll make it a point to piss on LBJ's grave stone, kick it over and pour gas on it and set it on fire.

Check this out...if you dare:McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War - YouTube

sambor71 • 4 months ago

Drink an extra glass or two and piss an extra stream for me. I had mates returned in boxes from Nam.

Flávio Gomes • 4 months ago

I said nothing about soldiers. Keep your vitriol to yourself.

Really?? • 5 months ago

The elected elderly gasbags in both parties love war. It allows them to be elected and re-elected on the platform of "national security" when, in reality, the opponents they target pose little or no real threat to national security and military forces seem incapable of defeating them after literally decades of fighting. The political incentive is to continue endless foreign wars that have no strategy or concept of victory. Orwell might correctly observe that "War is Peace."

don't forget the other popular vocab when stirring the war pot;
"to protect american interests"

Eiji Wolf • 5 months ago

"To make the world safe for democracy"

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here.

maybe, except the u.s. has two very large oceans for it's borders. (i don't count mexico and canada, beacuse neither is any real threat)
any country that thinking about invasion would have to cross one of those bodies of water. i'd like to think someone in the DOD would notice, long before they arrived.

widhalm19 • 5 months ago

The goal is not to defeat them, no, the goal is perpetual warfare, and thus, the MIC wins.

which is why the following were used
war on poverty
war on drugs
war on terror
niether poverty, drugs or terror can 'give up'. hence the "wars" can never really end. which is why the all continue today.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

Did you ever notice why these wars are all failures?
Expensive but failures none the less.

only failures in the real world. in government they are all working exactly as intended.

Brett • 5 months ago
Bashar al-Assad to “share power.


The civil war in Syria is over. Assad has won, what they are advocating for is full jingoistic war fervor.

, arguing that the Islamic State as well as al-Qaeda


Now they are resurrecting zombies to justify more war. This is actually insane, both of these groups have been defeated and vanquished. What they are going to war with will be the civilian population.

Eiji Wolf • 5 months ago
What they are going to war with will be the civilian population.

Which, predictably, creates and motivates zealots, martyrs and other "nothing to lose" types.
And if it doesn't (or doesn't do it in sufficient volume/magnitude)... well, the possibilities are endless, eh?

They know exactly what they are doing.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Brett • 5 months ago

The problem isn't big government, it is government.

Eiji Wolf • 5 months ago

True, but I don't have such a cartoon handy ;)

CommieScum • 5 months ago

The left is now telling us that the phrase "Endless wars" is a conservative dog-whistle! Make of that what you will.

rightintel • 5 months ago

IKR?

CommieScum • 5 months ago

It's almost as if the left wants innocents to die . . . oh wait that was obvious all along

noah • 5 months ago

' The late antiwar writer Justin Raimondo once described the War Party this way: “that complex of social, political, and economic forces that constitute a permanent and powerful lobby on behalf of imperialism and militarism.” '

Any suggestion that the election of Donald Trump helped move a single inch away from this firmly entrenched complex of forces is absurd.

Afghanistan: in 2017 Trump announced that he will deploy MORE, not fewer, U.S. troops there.

Syria: in 2017 and again in 2018 Trump authorized attacks (including a limited cruise missile strike) on regime-controlled bases and other targets.

Iraq: in 2020 Trump says he ordered a drone strike “to stop a war,” and Soleimani’s killing brings retaliation with missiles fired at two Iraqi bases hosting U.S. soldiers.

Saudi Arabia: in 2019 Trump reinforced the Saudi kingdom with three thousand U.S. troops, fighter jets and missile technology... this coming several months after Trump VETOED bills that would have ended U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen and blocked U.S. arms sales to Riyadh.

Yup, he was all about peace and non-intervention.

"The wars abroad remain unpopular" ... yet they remain. Because they ARE unpopular is exactly why the populist authoritarian (falsely) promised drastic change. It took Trump three years to merely "lay the groundwork" for any significant change in overseas interventions, and there is every indication that he would have been perfectly happy to start a brand new war somewhere else... at least judging by his own words on Venezuela, Korea and Iran (where he actually authorized military action on Iranian targets, but called it off, presumably because of the influence of cooler heads).

Or is somebody really going to claim that his hugely increased military spending was all truly for actual "defense" rather than offense?

I guess that's why his "hires" included the likes of establishment hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.

Justin Murray • 5 months ago

A President could completely withdraw all foreign stationed soldiers within a few months of the start of his term. That he didn't is telling all by itself.

trump says much.
trump does little.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

Grab 'em by the p****!

yet another thing trump said, yet never actually did.
then again, it might explain why trump's on his forth marriage.

widhalm19 • 5 months ago

Amen!

rightintel • 5 months ago

Granted that's all true, but he didn't start any new wars like Bush/Obama. I'll begrudgingly give him at least some credit for that. The bar is so low that simply not starting a new war is considered non-interventionist. He was...less terrible than Bush/Obama by a long shot.

DavidS2 • 4 months ago

You claim: Trump didn't "move a single inch away from this firmly entrenched complex of forces".

Then you provide evidence, which you summarize as showing: Trump wasn't "all about peace and non-intervention".

You complain: "It took Trump three years to merely "lay the groundwork" for any significant change in overseas interventions". Trump served a four-year term. Did he accomplish anything in year four?

"...he [Trump] would have been perfectly happy to start a brand new war somewhere else". Bald assertion.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

Sending American troops to that shite hole Fraudi Arabia flies in the face that everything America ONCE stood for: freedom and liberty.
The exact opposite of Fraudi Arabia, where there is no freedom or liberty, only a nation run by a corrupt old family(ex goat herders) placed into power by an equally corrupt British government.
Then the fat orange child molester has the nerve to sell the Fraudis $30 billion in arms and bone saws.A nation with one of the worst human rights records besides israel, and Washington supports it.
I am ashamed of this country. It is run by cowards, corrupt old fools, idiots and moral failures.
It's just another reason why I don't vote.

Klerk • 5 months ago

Meanwhile in current news Trump, late last week, wanted to bomb an Iranian enrichment site.

a Texas libertarian • 5 months ago

Was this another anonymous source?

DavidS2 • 4 months ago

Speaking of anonymous sources, I wonder if they'll be coming out of the woodwork to keep us informed about what goes on behind the scenes in the Biden administration.

Right now, the score is: Trump-around 52 billion; Biden-0.

But Biden "insiders" get their turn to even the score starting Jan 20. On your mark! Get set! ...

Klerk • 5 months ago

Anonymous sources (plural) who were at the meeting. The Administration has not issued a denial but rather no comment .

disqus_kETT7Vi5Vm • 5 months ago

Saying he "wanted to bomb Iran" is disingenuous. Did you read the news, which reported he explored options for striking Iran's uranium enrichment facility, and then translated to he "wanted to bomb Iran"?

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

How about bombing Israel's nuclear sites?

Klerk • 5 months ago

ROFL....The fact you think there's a difference is troubling.

disqus_kETT7Vi5Vm • 5 months ago

You lurking, Klerk?

Klerk • 5 months ago

What? I was typing a reply to another thread when you posted.

JdL • 5 months ago

I think you're splitting hairs.

disqus_kETT7Vi5Vm • 5 months ago

You think you can know from the news what the president wants?

Foxmuldar • 5 months ago

exactly, fake news will always put out anything that looks negative against Trump. The media loved Obama and now love the racist Biden. You ain't black if you don't vote for me.

Undecider • 4 months ago

Republican flag wavers won't be able to stop themselves from volunteering.

davegrille • 4 months ago

A return to war under a Biden administration seems to be inevitable .

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

Come on all you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Viet Nam
And it's one,two, three
What are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn
next stop is Viet Nam
And it's five, six,seven
Open up the pearly gates
Welll, you ain't got time to wonder why
whoooppeee , we're all gonna die.

jollyroger1951 • 4 months ago

War!

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

say it again:

War!

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

All wars are banker's wars. The Rottenchilds have financed both sides of every war since the Napoleonic....the bankers are the only winners. They also make sure their children never take part in wars.

Benjamin H. Freedman 1961 speech - YouTube

Rowdy-Yates • 5 months ago

The Democrats overplayed their hand. If fraud is going to be done then it should be done in a limited manner so as to not attract attention and I am sure election fraud has been going on for awhile. But to actually steal the elections and do fraud at this level, makes it public and the courts have to act. If Biden still manages to win in spite of the evidence of fraud then the outcome will be worse than if Trump won. A righteous course of fighting for the vote that was stolen has a lot of anger behind that. The nation will be ungovernable. Theft of a vote by Fraud is too much to take, especially from a party heavily leaning towards Marxism