More of the same- but better cause Biden is in control - LOL

[Gdjjr]

The more things change the more they stay the same


One thing is for certain in a Biden administration, and everyone should prepare for it: More Big Official Enemies. Given that Biden is deeply ensconced in the mindset of the national-security establishment, he will automatically buy into and support whatever official enemies the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA proclaim are threats to “national security.”


The most likely candidate is Russia. Count on the continuation of Russia’s role as America’s Official Enemy Number One. While everyone thought the Cold War ended long ago, not so for the U.S. national-security establishment. The Cold War was a high-cotton racket for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and they weren’t about to let it go. That’s why they did everything they could to ensure that Russia remained an official enemy of the United States during the Trump administration. There is little doubt that Russia’s role as Official Enemy #1 will be magnified during the Biden administration.

Another likely candidate is China

A third candidate is “terrorism.”

A fourth candidate is an array of Third World countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, or Syria.


Now, mind you, the term “official enemy” will not be used, either by Biden, his cohorts in the national-security establishment, or the mainstream press. They will use Empire Speak, the language of empires. They will talk about Russia and China being “adversaries,” “rivals,” “opponents,” or similar terms. But no matter which term is used, the meaning will be the same: The American people will be expected to adopt whatever official enemies are being proclaimed at that time and hate them and fear them.


The import of all this official enemy mindset, of course, is to let us know how important it is that the U.S. government remain a national-security state. Without official enemies, how can the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their existence, control, and power, not to mention their ever-increasing budgets?


Prepare Yourself for More Official Enemies

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

 

[Gdjjr]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

 

[Winston]

The more things change the more they stay the same


One thing is for certain in a Biden administration, and everyone should prepare for it: More Big Official Enemies. Given that Biden is deeply ensconced in the mindset of the national-security establishment, he will automatically buy into and support whatever official enemies the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA proclaim are threats to “national security.”


The most likely candidate is Russia. Count on the continuation of Russia’s role as America’s Official Enemy Number One. While everyone thought the Cold War ended long ago, not so for the U.S. national-security establishment. The Cold War was a high-cotton racket for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and they weren’t about to let it go. That’s why they did everything they could to ensure that Russia remained an official enemy of the United States during the Trump administration. There is little doubt that Russia’s role as Official Enemy #1 will be magnified during the Biden administration.

Another likely candidate is China

A third candidate is “terrorism.”

A fourth candidate is an array of Third World countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, or Syria.


Now, mind you, the term “official enemy” will not be used, either by Biden, his cohorts in the national-security establishment, or the mainstream press. They will use Empire Speak, the language of empires. They will talk about Russia and China being “adversaries,” “rivals,” “opponents,” or similar terms. But no matter which term is used, the meaning will be the same: The American people will be expected to adopt whatever official enemies are being proclaimed at that time and hate them and fear them.


The import of all this official enemy mindset, of course, is to let us know how important it is that the U.S. government remain a national-security state. Without official enemies, how can the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their existence, control, and power, not to mention their ever-increasing budgets?


Prepare Yourself for More Official Enemies

Just a thought.. But if the official enemy is external, instead of internal like with Trump, I believe we will be much better off. Better to be against a foreign foe than each other. Trump pitted us against each other, and that will be his legacy.

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

 

[citygator]

The more things change the more they stay the same


One thing is for certain in a Biden administration, and everyone should prepare for it: More Big Official Enemies. Given that Biden is deeply ensconced in the mindset of the national-security establishment, he will automatically buy into and support whatever official enemies the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA proclaim are threats to “national security.”


The most likely candidate is Russia. Count on the continuation of Russia’s role as America’s Official Enemy Number One. While everyone thought the Cold War ended long ago, not so for the U.S. national-security establishment. The Cold War was a high-cotton racket for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and they weren’t about to let it go. That’s why they did everything they could to ensure that Russia remained an official enemy of the United States during the Trump administration. There is little doubt that Russia’s role as Official Enemy #1 will be magnified during the Biden administration.

Another likely candidate is China

A third candidate is “terrorism.”

A fourth candidate is an array of Third World countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, or Syria.


Now, mind you, the term “official enemy” will not be used, either by Biden, his cohorts in the national-security establishment, or the mainstream press. They will use Empire Speak, the language of empires. They will talk about Russia and China being “adversaries,” “rivals,” “opponents,” or similar terms. But no matter which term is used, the meaning will be the same: The American people will be expected to adopt whatever official enemies are being proclaimed at that time and hate them and fear them.


The import of all this official enemy mindset, of course, is to let us know how important it is that the U.S. government remain a national-security state. Without official enemies, how can the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their existence, control, and power, not to mention their ever-increasing budgets?


Prepare Yourself for More Official Enemies

In your scenario Biden will elevate China or Russia to a focused enemy. So fucking what? Trump made your God damned neighbor the enemy. That’s fucked up.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

 

[Thevolunteerwino]

Sorry, I guess since I am not racist but I see it everywhere in a diverse race of human beings means that I must not understand "it"

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

You are a true imperialist. You want a massive military so that big corporations can rape and pillage the resources of foreign nations. All to benefit the ultra wealthy.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The more things change the more they stay the same


One thing is for certain in a Biden administration, and everyone should prepare for it: More Big Official Enemies. Given that Biden is deeply ensconced in the mindset of the national-security establishment, he will automatically buy into and support whatever official enemies the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA proclaim are threats to “national security.”


The most likely candidate is Russia. Count on the continuation of Russia’s role as America’s Official Enemy Number One. While everyone thought the Cold War ended long ago, not so for the U.S. national-security establishment. The Cold War was a high-cotton racket for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, and they weren’t about to let it go. That’s why they did everything they could to ensure that Russia remained an official enemy of the United States during the Trump administration. There is little doubt that Russia’s role as Official Enemy #1 will be magnified during the Biden administration.

Another likely candidate is China

A third candidate is “terrorism.”

A fourth candidate is an array of Third World countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, or Syria.


Now, mind you, the term “official enemy” will not be used, either by Biden, his cohorts in the national-security establishment, or the mainstream press. They will use Empire Speak, the language of empires. They will talk about Russia and China being “adversaries,” “rivals,” “opponents,” or similar terms. But no matter which term is used, the meaning will be the same: The American people will be expected to adopt whatever official enemies are being proclaimed at that time and hate them and fear them.


The import of all this official enemy mindset, of course, is to let us know how important it is that the U.S. government remain a national-security state. Without official enemies, how can the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA justify their existence, control, and power, not to mention their ever-increasing budgets?


Prepare Yourself for More Official Enemies

In your scenario Biden will elevate China or Russia to a focused enemy. So fucking what? Trump made your God damned neighbor the enemy. That’s fucked up.

Trump did no such thing. Any disagreement with leftists is explained away as divisive.

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

You are a true imperialist. You want a massive military so that big corporations can rape and pillage the resources of foreign nations. All to benefit the ultra wealthy.

You misunderstand. I'm telling you how the world works not how I want it to be.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

You are a true imperialist. You want a massive military so that big corporations can rape and pillage the resources of foreign nations. All to benefit the ultra wealthy.

You misunderstand. I'm telling you how the world works not how I want it to be.

You have a distorted view.

 

[occupied]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

You are a true imperialist. You want a massive military so that big corporations can rape and pillage the resources of foreign nations. All to benefit the ultra wealthy.

You misunderstand. I'm telling you how the world works not how I want it to be.

You have a distorted view.

Probably but it's the only one I have. Not sure what you are even arguing. I'm pretty much saying what you are only I have come to the realization there is no fixing it without giving up much of our raw power in the world.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The greatest enemy right now is the democrat party.

 

[gipper]

Are you suggesting an Isolationist defense posture?

Trade with all ally with none is not isolationist, stupid. get some new schtick.

Eat shit asshole. I was just asking you a simple, non-loaded question. Since you have a problem with our current defense posture in world I just wanted to know what you think would be better.

It was a dumb question but one often asked by imperialists and warmongers, whenever the empire is questioned.

We could use a great deal more of isolationism.

People before we were born decided America would be the world police. Retreating from that role without our adversaries rushing into the power vacuum is probably impossible.

Yeah that’s the conventional wisdom. I’m not buying it. What adversaries? The ones the MIC have made. There is no need to make Russia and China adversaries, but to enrich the rich and keep the MIC flush.

It's not "conventional wisdom" it's how it is. Just because it resembles a game does not make it any less real. We have to play the game because everyone else plays the nation state game that has been ongoing since the bronze age. Since we have to play the nation state game it's foolish not to play to win. It's not that our interventionist polices are necessarily wrong, we have just been stupid about it.

Nope. No nation would dare attack us. Just bring all our people home and mind our own business.

Imperialism only benefits the rich and ultimately will destroy the nation, just as it has all prior empires.

We consume an outsize share of the world's resources. We can only do that because we have the military everywhere to protect our trading partners, trade routes and raw materials.

You are a true imperialist. You want a massive military so that big corporations can rape and pillage the resources of foreign nations. All to benefit the ultra wealthy.

You misunderstand. I'm telling you how the world works not how I want it to be.

You have a distorted view.

Probably but it's the only one I have. Not sure what you are even arguing. I'm pretty much saying what you are only I have come to the realization there is no fixing it without giving up much of our raw power in the world.

If you can’t understand the heinous nature of imperialism, after all the death and destruction caused by our imperialist government, and the many empires throughout history who have destroyed themselves due to imperialism, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.