Anti-interventionism? We've been interfering continually. This is a result of the aggressive, imperial interventionism we've engaged in for decades.
Maybe if we truely engaged in non-intetventionist policies we wouldn't be so deep in the muck. Anti-war? HAHA, yeah right. That's just ridiculous.
And your point is wrong. We fight now because we are under attack.
Yes, and we have a moral obligation to be involved because we put many of the dictators in the ME in power. Now that the USSR has been defeated, we can removed these dictators from power.
There is that, but seeing how that's backfired pretty much every time we do it, I think the bigger lesson is that we need to quit ****ing with other people's **** so much. We don't have a good track record.
As with so many things, it depends upon one's perspective.
We certainly DO have a good track record, if one is in the arms business.
Ah the old "they hate us for our freedom" schtick. Probably the silliest conspiracy theory of all time.:lamo
Well yes, that is certainly what they want you to think. A fearful populace is easy to manipulate.
It is not a matter of manipulation. The situation is actually worse than is publicized.
It's clearly a matter of manipulation. Keep them fearful, keep them ignorant, and you can do whatever you want. That's the line the government takes here. Make us fear and then we won't question their power grabs, their forever war, their fascism. Just skipping down the road to hell.
Well yes, that is certainly what they want you to think. A fearful populace is easy to manipulate.
It is not a matter of manipulation. The situation is actually worse than is publicized.
I guess bombs in major population centers intended to kill innocent civilians is nothing to worry about. :roll:
I would say sharks along the North Carolina coast is a more legitimate worry, or floods and the ravages of mother nature.
More people die on US highways in a month or two than have ever been killed by angry arab terrorists.
You're missing the point, which is that when US history contains events such as Pearl Harbor, half of the country choosing to secede and the civil war that resulted from it, and the revolutionary war which would resulted in the creation of our country, it is clearly incorrect to claim that we are at our highest threat level in history.
What reason would they have to attack us if we stand down and withdraw to our borders?
Naw, you're right Jack--the authorities would NEVER attempt to deceive the populace or manipulate the public perception. Sure.
That's why Woodrow Wilson hired Freud's nephew Bernays--to sell WWI to the populace by way of Public Relations.
It seems you have drunk from the cup and like it very much.
Please provide us with the information YOU have that the chief of US intel does not, and explain why you are withholding it.
Besides simply waiting til Pearl Harbor is attcked, waiting for another 911 isn't what this president has promised nor what the country needs.
There is that, but seeing how that's backfired pretty much every time we do it, I think the bigger lesson is that we need to quit ****ing with other people's **** so much. We don't have a good track record.
If we never had gotten involved in the ME, the USSR would have and we would be sitting in the USSR's shoes right now. That's my whole point. People are very poorly educated about history and don't understand the dynamics of the Cold War.
If we never had gotten involved in the ME, the USSR would have and we would be sitting in the USSR's shoes right now. That's my whole point. People are very poorly educated about history and don't understand the dynamics of the Cold War.
Are you under the impression that a member of the House of Representatives is incapable of hyperbole? ISIS is nowhere near the international war capabilities of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the British Empire.
So your premise is that not only the intelligence committee, but the FBI (both of which know more than you) are pretending here. :lol:
There is hyperbole involved here-but its from you.
I certainly agree that far too many are "poorly educated about history" but your statements fail to support your point in regards to ignorance about the West's actions in the Middle East during the 20th Century.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?