Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Had Wilson and Roosevelt NOT been Democrats, your silly partisan logic might just have worked!It began when Democrats stopped allowing us to declare wars. This comes from some innate belief that this country, deep down, isn't good. From a belief that our enemies, that just want to murder all of us, are justified.US and our allies won World War 2 in under 5 years on many many fronts, in many many countries. But we can't win a war against North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, and a terrorist group?
The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win.
US seems to be very good at inventing technology to kill people, training people to kill people, but absolutely sucks at winning wars. Or, we're just not interested in winning.
But why would we not be interested in actually winning and going home? Well, look at who provides all the material used in wars. The corporations and defense contractors. Could they have something to do with things? Like maybe the longer a war goes on, the more money they make?
In World War 2 this was called war profiteering and I think we took people for a walk in the woods for it. When did that change? Can we change it back? Are corporations more powerful than the actual military? Scene from "Taps" comes to mind when faced with losing their school, students seized weapons from the armory and told the developers what to go do with themselves in no uncertain terms.
Until it becomes the policy of the USA to resume winning wars and kicking ass the military and American public shoudl simply refuse en masse' to support wars we're not even trying to win any more at the expense of peoples' lives so rich people can be a little richer.
Well that sure narrows it down to dozens and dozens of nations.War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
Defense of a third party is pretty broad. Can you narrow that down? That just legitimized any action.
If an ally of our's is invaded.
What interests would warrant going to war?War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.
War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.
So, if that's a rule, then you just let our enemies know that they can attack our interests without any fear.
"The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win."
Both 'conclusions' are nonsense, and fail as false comparison fallacies.
One can't compare World War II with Post War conflicts, such as Vietnam and the ME.
The age of 'conventional' war is long over.
What interests would warrant going to war?War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Truth is, to the left, victory is a dirty word."The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win."
Both 'conclusions' are nonsense, and fail as false comparison fallacies.
One can't compare World War II with Post War conflicts, such as Vietnam and the ME.
The age of 'conventional' war is long over.
War can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
Defense of a third party is pretty broad. Can you narrow that down? That just legitimized any action.
If an ally of our's is invaded.
Theres no such thing."The only logical conclusion is either a) we're outclassed, or b) we're not trying to win."
Both 'conclusions' are nonsense, and fail as false comparison fallacies.
One can't compare World War II with Post War conflicts, such as Vietnam and the ME.
The age of 'conventional' war is long over.
That's BS. The US military is fully trained and equipped to fight an "unconventional" war.
The reason we don't win is due to politicians sticking their noses in and over-ruling the military leaders who could win. Politically motivated Rules of Engagement are exactly what has kept us from winning. That and forcing us to pull out before the goal is fully achieved,
Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime exampleWar can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.
Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime exampleWar can be good when it's done for the right reasons, and waged to be won and ended as quickly as possible.
What is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.
Saddam attacking Kuwait was a prime exampleWhat is a right reason?
Invasion, defense of a third party. I'm against pre-emptive attack.
What about protection of interests?
Too easily abused. If US has "interests" in foreign countries which come under attack well, that's life. Too easy to abuse a military response to that by just putting US interests everywhere as a lure just to justify going to war over their getting hit.
Because Kuwait was drilling sideways.
