Should the USA continue to be the police force of the entire world?

[joko104]

Comment: Like many, I figured Trump was going to lose in 2016 until a specific moment when I was certain he would win (by altering votes on computer voting machines.) That moment was when one of the generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before Congress that Hilary Clinton calling for a no fly zone over Syria would mean "war with Russia" and that the USA military "was not prepared" to go to war against Russia.

The military, military industries, CIA and NSA all want the Cold War against the extinct USSR to continue forever for the trillions in profit and almost unlimited power this brings. But only an insane person wants a HOT war with Russia. They would never allow Clinton to win.

TOPIC:

I just heard what I think makes it almost impossible for Trump to win. Unlike Biden and Harris, both who openly want us to get into war in Syria, Trump not only said no and that he was pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he also is going to make Europe (3 times Russia's population and 10 times richer) defend itself. For this, General Mattis quit. Worse, President Trump gave Eisenhower's beware of the military industrial complex speech - attacking war mongering generals and the military industrial complex.

That was a MASSIVE statement by Trump - and fully buried by the MSM because most people do NOT want us in endless police wars in the ME and all over the world. We now hear Roger Stone ranting that there is an ongoing coup against President Trump for this reason. While he's wacko, that doesn't mean there is nothing to it either as we do know how upset Mattis and others got over us not going to war against Syria and therefore also Russia.

Can Trump take on the war mongerers in the military, the warhawks of both political parties, the MSM and press - which has promoted and loved every war the USA has been in, plus the monstrous military industrial complex, the CIA and the NSA to endlessly being in perpetual never ending wars like we have been in since WW2 - so that the generals, defense industries, CIA and NSA keep getting more and more money and power - more than when in WW2?

Probably not.

What about you? Do you think the USA should continue to be the police force of the entire world?

 

[joko104]

I believe this is why every possible method to control the presidential election by election fraud has been put in place. It is not so the Democrats can steal the election. It is so the war mongers can control the election to protect their power and profits.

 

[jaypatriot]

joko
From a global economic and military standpoint, I believe it is still very important for the U.S. to contain Iran in the Red Sea - Strait of Hormuz area; to further the alliances of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations against Iran; to be a bulwark against an alliance of Turkey and Russia; and keep China from commanding the entire ocean area around SouthEast Asia.
That is my idea of the U.S.being the local police force in the world today.

 

[AmNat]

joko
From a global economic and military standpoint, I believe it is still very important for the U.S. to contain Iran in the Red Sea - Strait of Hormuz area; to further the alliances of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations against Iran; to be a bulwark against an alliance of Turkey and Russia; and keep China from commanding the entire ocean area around SouthEast Asia.
That is my idea of the U.S.being the local police force in the world today.

Can you imagine how bad our lives would be if Turkey and Russia were allied? Who could even get out of bed in the morning if that happened?

Think of all the dying small towns in the Midwest, just hanging on by a thread. If Russia and Turkey ended their traditional enmity, it would likely be the final blow for them.

 

[Exquisitor]

Sure, I'm glad someone recognizes that is what we are.

 

[joko104]

joko
From a global economic and military standpoint, I believe it is still very important for the U.S. to contain Iran in the Red Sea - Strait of Hormuz area; to further the alliances of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations against Iran; to be a bulwark against an alliance of Turkey and Russia; and keep China from commanding the entire ocean area around SouthEast Asia.
That is my idea of the U.S.being the local police force in the world today.

Too late for that. The USA is broke. We have almost no heavy industry left. Time is against us. If you wanted us to go to war against Iran before they get nuclear weapons you'd have my vote. But we won't. Rather, will just spend another $1, $2, $3, $5, $10 trillion we don't have all to accomplish absolutely nothing other than dead Americans and whoever we kill until we leave.

Democrats now almost have the votes to end our supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia - favoring Iran. Iran will control Iraq. Saudi Arabia will fall to radicals. Turkey and Russia will make a deal. The Empire of Islam and Russia will continue to gain more control over Europe.

China WILL control all the area of S.E. Asia and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The future in that region is China's, not ours. It is unlikely China would sell us what we need to stop China. We couldn't even make paper masks for nearly 2 months.

Being an American for the USA is no longer acceptable and those who instead want globalism now control all of the MSM, press and the Internet with their 24/7 propaganda. Disney ownership of Fox will see it gradually end being the only pro-USA network left in the USA. The American Empire is coming to an end, like it or not.

 

[joko104]

Can you imagine how bad our lives would be if Turkey and Russia were allied? Who could even get out of bed in the morning if that happened?

Think of all the dying small towns in the Midwest, just hanging on by a thread. If Russia and Turkey ended their traditional enmity, it would likely be the final blow for them.

If you think that, buy the most comfortable bed you can while you still may have the money to do it.

Imagine instead if we had spend the $50 trillion and billions of government man hours on policing other countries instead on the USA, civilian industry and ourselves? Instead, liberalism made us dependent upon the world - and now we pay the price for our declared self entitlement, gluttony, arrogance and idiocy.

As you should gather, I am not optimistic of the future of the United States by any measure - domestic or foreign, social or economic. President Trump temporarily could slow the inevitable a bit, but nothing more.

 

[joko104]

joko
From a global economic and military standpoint, I believe it is still very important for the U.S. to contain Iran in the Red Sea - Strait of Hormuz area; to further the alliances of Israel and the surrounding Arab nations against Iran; to be a bulwark against an alliance of Turkey and Russia; and keep China from commanding the entire ocean area around SouthEast Asia.
That is my idea of the U.S.being the local police force in the world today.

Thinking of this further, I would be interested in your strategy as to how we would win a war against Russia, China, Iran and Turkey? A massive first nuclear strike against all 4? Putin was very clear he would use tactical nuclear weapons in response to any large scale military action against their interests in the region.

Seriously, now to you claim that we can militarily stop Turkey and Russia from linking up in their backyard? How do you claim we can militarily contain China in China's backyard? Estimate the costs and number of troops you want to put into battle for these goals.

 

[Jason Warfield]

We have two World Wars and a Cold War to show why a US presence is needed.

We have enough overseas territories to protect.

American corporate interests have overseas investments to protect.

We have an economy that requires us to protect friendly nations who do business with us.

The world is now a much smaller place, being an isolationist nation is no longer an option without causing great harm to the citizens.

Why would we stand by and let genocide happen?

Side note: I noticed that there are some who call Democrats warmongers. I would like to point out that the GOP has always increased the military budgets whenever possible and have acted to expand wars. And to fight wars we didn't need to.

 

[TheParser]

NO.

I thank President Trump for keeping us out of wars.

I thank President Trump for telling our foreign "friends" to pay more for their own defense.

I thank President Trump for standing up to our military brass, who -- of course -- have shown their displeasure by being insubordinate.

I have no doubt that President Biden will invite the usual clique of international "experts" to join his government, and they will suggest that it is our duty to change the world. Besides, it's fun for them to go flying around the world at taxpayer expense in order to lecture other nations and to come home with juicy military contracts.

The old gang is just salivating at the thought of the Dems taking back the reins of government.

 

[SMTA]

Comment: Like many, I figured Trump was going to lose in 2016 until a specific moment when I was certain he would win (by altering votes on computer voting machines.) That moment was when one of the generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before Congress that Hilary Clinton calling for a no fly zone over Syria would mean "war with Russia" and that the USA military "was not prepared" to go to war against Russia.

The military, military industries, CIA and NSA all want the Cold War against the extinct USSR to continue forever for the trillions in profit and almost unlimited power this brings. But only an insane person wants a HOT war with Russia. They would never allow Clinton to win.

TOPIC:

I just heard what I think makes it almost impossible for Trump to win. Unlike Biden and Harris, both who openly want us to get into war in Syria, Trump not only said no and that he was pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he also is going to make Europe (3 times Russia's population and 10 times richer) defend itself. For this, General Mattis quit. Worse, President Trump gave Eisenhower's beware of the military industrial complex speech - attacking war mongering generals and the military industrial complex.

That was a MASSIVE statement by Trump - and fully buried by the MSM because most people do NOT want us in endless police wars in the ME and all over the world. We now hear Roger Stone ranting that there is an ongoing coup against President Trump for this reason. While he's wacko, that doesn't mean there is nothing to it either as we do know how upset Mattis and others got over us not going to war against Syria and therefore also Russia.

Can Trump take on the war mongerers in the military, the warhawks of both political parties, the MSM and press - which has promoted and loved every war the USA has been in, plus the monstrous military industrial complex, the CIA and the NSA to endlessly being in perpetual never ending wars like we have been in since WW2 - so that the generals, defense industries, CIA and NSA keep getting more and more money and power - more than when in WW2?

Probably not.

What about you? Do you think the USA should continue to be the police force of the entire world?

tl:dr TFS

 

[JoeyJoystick]

We have two World Wars and a Cold War to show why a US presence is needed.

We have enough overseas territories to protect.

American corporate interests have overseas investments to protect.

We have an economy that requires us to protect friendly nations who do business with us.

The world is now a much smaller place, being an isolationist nation is no longer an option without causing great harm to the citizens.

Why would we stand by and let genocide happen?

Side note: I noticed that there are some who call Democrats warmongers. I would like to point out that the GOP has always increased the military budgets whenever possible and have acted to expand wars. And to fight wars we didn't need to.

I think this is actually a very difficult question.

It is not fair to ask any country to be the police of the world. But the US kinda did exactly that as we all know. I would rather refer to it as a stabilizing factor though.

Now although the US helped stabilize the world, there is a serious problem with the approach used.

When Germany and Japan were occupied we have send many people there for many years. And this worked. As a matter of fact, it worked so well that both Germany and Japan recovered from the war faster than most other nations. Now you think you would build on such a success right? Well no...

After the WWII the US has sent their armies to a number of conflicts, and without exception turned every single one of those countries to a state that was worse than before they arrived. Central America, South America, Africa, Asia and fairly recently the Middle East of course with Afghanistan and Iraq. They made really really big mistakes, which I find hard to explain other than that they thought it was financially beneficial.

The US has the potential to do so much good, but they did not.

Why would anyone think that you can fight a war in a country (Iraq) with 10% of the people that you previously used to just occupy a country (Germany). And in addition to this, Germany was a piece of cake compared to Iraq in the sense that the Germans and the Americans are much more similar (read easier to understand) than the Iraqis and the Americans. And much like in Vietnam, they failed miserably to understand the people of the country they were in. I will actually go as far to say that they didn't try to understand it at all. And I can back this up. The us never recognized the differences between communism in China and Russia, which is very very different. The US fails to understand the differences between Socialism and Communism which are 2 completely different things as well. And Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the Americans. He was a socialist. But after the US let him down he went to Russia. (Russia, not China) And with that the whole Vietnam war was completely avoidable and a missed opportunity for the Americans to get a very strategic stronghold right next door to China. What an immense strategic failure. On top of all the lost lives in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and of course the US. And on top of the humiliation of having lost a war against these poor people in the jungle.

Joey

 

[Dans La Lune]

Is there a balance between America savaging other nations with intervention wars and closing its borders and withdrawing from the world?

Btw, Trump hasn't withdrawn America from being a destabilizing force. He just doesn't care about the people left in the the wake of his policies, thus America doesn't have to nation build. Trump openly advocates for plundering the resources less fortunate nations. In addition, he brags about selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other hostile / corrupt nations. He has attempted coups of other nations (Venezuela).

While I'm sure this appeals to 99% of the Republican base, it's not sound foreign policy. And for the most part, it's status quo without the pretense of compassion.

 

[joko104]

We have two World Wars and a Cold War to show why a US presence is needed.

We have enough overseas territories to protect.

American corporate interests have overseas investments to protect.

We have an economy that requires us to protect friendly nations who do business with us.

The world is now a much smaller place, being an isolationist nation is no longer an option without causing great harm to the citizens.

Why would we stand by and let genocide happen?

Side note: I noticed that there are some who call Democrats warmongers. I would like to point out that the GOP has always increased the military budgets whenever possible and have acted to expand wars. And to fight wars we didn't need to.

As a FACT, not a side note, over 90% of American war deaths have been under Democratic leadership.

The USA has NO reason to get into WW1. If we had not, there would not have been WW2. WW1 would have ended in a draw. In addition, if the USA has not gone into WW1 there never would have been a USSR because WW1 caused the fall of the Russian Czar.

Without WW1, WW2 and the Cold War, there would have been no Korean war and no Vietnam war. It is unlikely China would be the monster it is now either.

There are endless rationalizations for war mongering. Always arguing the war will end future wars - when usually they endlessly cause more wars.

I am not for isolation. Rather, I oppose the USA policing the world - declaring that forever after no nation border can ever change - despite bordering have perpetually changed for all of known human history.

The EU/Europe has 300% more people and at least 10 times more money and manufacturing ability than Russia. Why do we pay to defend Europe while Europe is in economic battle with us - while most European countries are doing business with Russia?

 

[joko104]

Is there a balance between America savaging other nations with intervention wars and closing its borders and withdrawing from the world?

Btw, Trump hasn't withdrawn America from being a destabilizing force. He just doesn't care about the people left in the the wake of his policies, thus America doesn't have to nation build. Trump openly advocates for plundering the resources less fortunate nations. In addition, he brags about selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other hostile / corrupt nations. He has attempted coups of other nations (Venezuela).

While I'm sure this appeals to 99% of the Republican base, it's not sound foreign policy. And for the most part, it's status quo without the pretense of compassion.

The endless attacks by the Democratic Party against Israel and Saudi Arabia, while silence on Iran, tells the depths of hatred of the USA they truly have. The only countries preventing Iran from entirely overrunning the ME are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thus, you and most Democrats HATE Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is that simple.

 

[joko104]

I think this is actually a very difficult question.

It is not fair to ask any country to be the police of the world. But the US kinda did exactly that as we all know. I would rather refer to it as a stabilizing factor though.

Now although the US helped stabilize the world, there is a serious problem with the approach used.

When Germany and Japan were occupied we have send many people there for many years. And this worked. As a matter of fact, it worked so well that both Germany and Japan recovered from the war faster than most other nations. Now you think you would build on such a success right? Well no...

After the WWII the US has sent their armies to a number of conflicts, and without exception turned every single one of those countries to a state that was worse than before they arrived. Central America, South America, Africa, Asia and fairly recently the Middle East of course with Afghanistan and Iraq. They made really really big mistakes, which I find hard to explain other than that they thought it was financially beneficial.

The US has the potential to do so much good, but they did not.

Why would anyone think that you can fight a war in a country (Iraq) with 10% of the people that you previously used to just occupy a country (Germany). And in addition to this, Germany was a piece of cake compared to Iraq in the sense that the Germans and the Americans are much more similar (read easier to understand) than the Iraqis and the Americans. And much like in Vietnam, they failed miserably to understand the people of the country they were in. I will actually go as far to say that they didn't try to understand it at all. And I can back this up. The us never recognized the differences between communism in China and Russia, which is very very different. The US fails to understand the differences between Socialism and Communism which are 2 completely different things as well. And Ho Chi Minh tried to reach out to the Americans. He was a socialist. But after the US let him down he went to Russia. (Russia, not China) And with that the whole Vietnam war was completely avoidable and a missed opportunity for the Americans to get a very strategic stronghold right next door to China. What an immense strategic failure. On top of all the lost lives in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and of course the US. And on top of the humiliation of having lost a war against these poor people in the jungle.

Joey

Of the greatest modern stupidities of the USA - and meant to insure massive endless military spending and proxy wars - are:

1. At the end of WW2, almost immediately 100% switching sides, declaring Japan and Germany were our allies, and the USSR and China our enemies. The later 100% assured the Korean War.

2. Declaring "ha ha, got you!" to the Russian Federation when the USSR was eliminated, rather than saying "welcome to the family" and making exorbitantly lucrative civil business deals with Russia. If we had done so, it would have saved trillion of dollars and millions of lives. But it would have cost military jobs, CIA and NSA jobs, and defense contractors' profits and jobs too.

Who could not predict that declaring the HATED Japanese (for good reasons) are prohibited from having any military - that we would defend Japan for free forever - would not lead to wars?

MAO already had a million troops on the North Korean/China boarder from running off the Chinese warlord. MacArthur assured China would not invade. Of course they would. Korea was "the dagger pointed at the heart of China" for centuries. And look what "winning" the Korean war produced? We still have tens of thousands of troops in S. Korea - now over half a century. Image what half a century of that spending could have done for Americans?

These wars? Near all on lies.
The Spanish did not sink the USS Maine (a lie by the military and intelligence.
The Lusitannia was a weapons transport ship and Germany even took out an ad in the NYT warning it would be sunk before it sailed.The military and government lied to get us into WW1
Some claim Japan was pushed to attack us by starving out Japan.
The military and government lied, promising China would not get into that war.
There were no WMDs in Iraq
Attacking Libya turned Libya into a terrorist hellhole.

Now Democrats want to go to war in Syria, which has been in the Russian sphere of influence for over half a century similar to our relationship with Germany. Biden/Harris will give the military industries, military generals, the CIA and the NSA the war in Syria they want for budget money and jobs.

If you want to go to war in Syria as a proxy war against Russia, sign up. Lead the charge. Of course, to do this, we must stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also would have to put troops back into Lebanon. What do you want - at least 15 to 20 years in war in Syria?

 

[Dans La Lune]

The endless attacks by the Democratic Party against Israel and Saudi Arabia, while silence on Iran, tells the depths of hatred of the USA they truly have. The only countries preventing Iran from entirely overrunning the ME are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thus, you and most Democrats HATE Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is that simple.

I hate the government of Saudi Arabia. I'm not silent on Iran. However, Iran is not an ally, nor does it pretend to be a Western style democracy like Israel does. I judge Israel by the standards of its peers, not against Iran or Saudi Arabia. Iran is a theocratic nation with many extremist elements. They are nowhere near as bad as Saudi Arabia or the ideology that springs from it.

 

[swing_voter]

We were attacked on 9/11 by a force based out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan had fallen into chaos and al Qeada got a safe base to thrive in.

So some things you have to take care of before they become a big problem. If restoring order to Afghanistan is "policing the world", then "policing the world" is beneficial to us.

 

[vegas giants]

Close most overseas bases. Mothball half the carrier groups. Cut tank divisions. Increase military pay but also requirements.


We would be much safer

 

[skeptic llc]

Which kind of "liberalism" are you trying to blame? Until Trump, more free trade was always a conservative cause. Clinton was seen as a moderate partly based on his openness to it, which was uncharacteristic for a Dem. Unions were aware that free trade would destroy their wages and result in their jobs and industries moving overseas, as happened, hence the rank and file abandoning Ds in response to Ds having abandoned them. But liberals in no way led the charge on this issue; that was conservatives bowing to their economist priests.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Of the greatest modern stupidities of the USA - and meant to insure massive endless military spending and proxy wars - are:

1. At the end of WW2, almost immediately 100% switching sides, declaring Japan and Germany were our allies, and the USSR and China our enemies. The later 100% assured the Korean War.

2. Declaring "ha ha, got you!" to the Russian Federation when the USSR was eliminated, rather than saying "welcome to the family" and making exorbitantly lucrative civil business deals with Russia. If we had done so, it would have saved trillion of dollars and millions of lives. But it would have cost military jobs, CIA and NSA jobs, and defense contractors' profits and jobs too.

Who could not predict that declaring the HATED Japanese (for good reasons) are prohibited from having any military - that we would defend Japan for free forever - would not lead to wars?

MAO already had a million troops on the North Korean/China boarder from running off the Chinese warlord. MacArthur assured China would not invade. Of course they would. Korea was "the dagger pointed at the heart of China" for centuries. And look what "winning" the Korean war produced? We still have tens of thousands of troops in S. Korea - now over half a century. Image what half a century of that spending could have done for Americans?

These wars? Near all on lies.
The Spanish did not sink the USS Maine (a lie by the military and intelligence.
The Lusitannia was a weapons transport ship and Germany even took out an ad in the NYT warning it would be sunk before it sailed.The military and government lied to get us into WW1
Some claim Japan was pushed to attack us by starving out Japan.
The military and government lied, promising China would not get into that war.
There were no WMDs in Iraq
Attacking Libya turned Libya into a terrorist hellhole.

Now Democrats want to go to war in Syria, which has been in the Russian sphere of influence for over half a century similar to our relationship with Germany. Biden/Harris will give the military industries, military generals, the CIA and the NSA the war in Syria they want for budget money and jobs.

If you want to go to war in Syria as a proxy war against Russia, sign up. Lead the charge. Of course, to do this, we must stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also would have to put troops back into Lebanon. What do you want - at least 15 to 20 years in war in Syria?

Hi Yoko,

I do not want war. I hate war. I hate violence. The best I can do is that I admit in some situations violence is inevitable. Such as WWII. I was merely trying to answer the question of US police Yes/No. And I tried to motivate my answer.

I would like to correct you on one thing though. The Japanese were not forced to abandon the military. Germany was though. But the Japanese approached the Americans (MacArthur I believe) and asked if it was ok to put into the new constitution that Japan can not have an army. Which MacArthur of course quickly agreed to.

[Edit] Oh and on Russia one more thing though. They may have been allies, but they have never been friends and have never been trusted throughout the entire war. As matter of fact, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt had many talks together that deliberately did not include Stalin. Don't confuse allies with friends. But I fully agree that, in hind side, they should have dealt with it completely differently.

Joey

 

[AmNat]

As you should gather, I am not optimistic of the future of the United States by any measure - domestic or foreign, social or economic. President Trump temporarily could slow the inevitable a bit, but nothing more.

This is basically my view of things.

We have two World Wars and a Cold War to show why a US presence is needed.

"We have stage 4 lung cancer to show why smoking is needed."

So some things you have to take care of before they become a big problem. If restoring order to Afghanistan is "policing the world", then "policing the world" is beneficial to us.

Have we, in fact "restored order" to Afghanistan?

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Have we, in fact "restored order" to Afghanistan?

Hi AmNat,

I'm afraid the answer is a clear NO.

Joey

 

[Paradoxical]

Comment: Like many, I figured Trump was going to lose in 2016 until a specific moment when I was certain he would win (by altering votes on computer voting machines.) That moment was when one of the generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before Congress that Hilary Clinton calling for a no fly zone over Syria would mean "war with Russia" and that the USA military "was not prepared" to go to war against Russia.

The military, military industries, CIA and NSA all want the Cold War against the extinct USSR to continue forever for the trillions in profit and almost unlimited power this brings. But only an insane person wants a HOT war with Russia. They would never allow Clinton to win.

TOPIC:

I just heard what I think makes it almost impossible for Trump to win. Unlike Biden and Harris, both who openly want us to get into war in Syria, Trump not only said no and that he was pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he also is going to make Europe (3 times Russia's population and 10 times richer) defend itself. For this, General Mattis quit. Worse, President Trump gave Eisenhower's beware of the military industrial complex speech - attacking war mongering generals and the military industrial complex.

That was a MASSIVE statement by Trump - and fully buried by the MSM because most people do NOT want us in endless police wars in the ME and all over the world. We now hear Roger Stone ranting that there is an ongoing coup against President Trump for this reason. While he's wacko, that doesn't mean there is nothing to it either as we do know how upset Mattis and others got over us not going to war against Syria and therefore also Russia.

Can Trump take on the war mongerers in the military, the warhawks of both political parties, the MSM and press - which has promoted and loved every war the USA has been in, plus the monstrous military industrial complex, the CIA and the NSA to endlessly being in perpetual never ending wars like we have been in since WW2 - so that the generals, defense industries, CIA and NSA keep getting more and more money and power - more than when in WW2?

Probably not.

What about you? Do you think the USA should continue to be the police force of the entire world?

Could anyone imagine twenty years ago a Republican president puling troops out of countries and saving American lives being shunned and met with silence by the LEFT!? Trump is revealing what really goes in in the world which is that the military industrial complex (companies that make weapons of mass destruction) control congress and the Senate though their lavish donations and schmoozing? This INCLUDES military generals and officials who award contracts to those who make money off death. Not only of foreign humans but American humans.

Trump is a threat to their existence ad this is the ONLY reason why the military brass hates him. The military brass WANTS war, It's how they make MONEY and how CONGRESS makes money.

 

[Dans La Lune]

This is basically my view of things.



"We have stage 4 lung cancer to show why smoking is needed."



Have we, in fact "restored order" to Afghanistan?

Nope. Are American soldiers still a glorified bodyguards for oil interests? Yes. Is America still engaged in proxy wars and worse in the Middle East? Yes. Trump has accelerated this, not put American on the decline.

Bernie Sanders had by far the best foreign policy platform. No one in American history has really come close, at least at the presidential candidate level.