Biden Now Bombing Poorest People On Earth

finally found something I agree with you on ...

 

Saying someone is anti-war because they were slightly less terrible than previous administrations is like saying someone is anti-crime because they only steal bikes while everyone else is stealing cars.

He bombed just as much as Obama did

 

Why all the whining? The U.S. hasn't had anything approaching a real war since 2003. A couple of soldiers killed here and there by insurgents isn't a war.

 

At the same token, by bombing Somalia we'd risk being involved in that region. To me, the only reason to engage in hostilities is to accomplish some objective. I don't see the objective in Somalia, similarly to there being no objective in Yemen or Afghanistan.

 

You do make a valid point. It seems every time we go in with force to clean out one of these shitholes, we end up 'nesting' there, getting our own people killed and we squander BILLIONS of dollars that we don't have....

 

I might be old school fashioned, but I believe the military's strict purpose should be to either attack or defend. And well, seeing as "that's not who we are", then our primary foreign policy position should be what the framers said: Non-entangling alliances, and **** out of these situations.

 

I was going to disagree... however I can't. Our military industrial complex runs our foreign policy, I've concluded.

 

Their stock gains of defense, regardless of the markup of the executive or legislative branch certainly agree with your statement, unfortunately.

 

When Trump was elected the liberal, Neocon, and CIA crowd put out the word: "We have to keep our heads until this peace craze blows over."

 

The policy seems to come out of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

I'm not sure a third party would be any different.

 

Nothing screams peace like lobbing 100 plus cruise missiles at an airfield.

 

It would make the two parties less powerful. As it stands now it does not matter what they do our how bad they **** things up, they always end up back in power

 

Well if you are going to be fair, you will acknowledge that strike took place as an exception to Trump policy based on pressure applied with a likely faked use of Sarin.

 

Term limits would make both parties less powerful.

 

No, sticking our nose in their business before 9-11 is what caused the attack. Who started the fight between Muslims and Christians over 2,000 years ago? Truthfully no one knows the answer.

 

You can't blame 9-11 on something that happened two millennia ago.

 

Sure, if you ignore the drone strikes that increased after Trump took office, I guess you can call the cruise missiles an exception

 

Yeah, the trump peace maker myth is hilarious. He made a clumsy attempt at getting out of Syria, and talked a big game about getting out of Afghanistan.
Oddly enough democrats, and republicans opposed him in both cases. That being said drone strikes increased, even more than under Obama.
So nothing has really changed in this department, with the Biden, and the last three people in office. They all treat the globe as their own personal bombing range, with no accountability whatsoever.

 

Enjoy your clouds of delusion.
Same sort bumped off Muhammad and turned Islam into a weapon of war against the Orthodox Church. They pulled down the World Trade Center from inside official circles. They even predicted it as a "new pearl harbor" to loot trillions from America and others, and the same sorts are still running things. President Trump was a patsy of theirs and still is.

 

According to U.S. Air Forces Central Command, U.S. aircraft dropped 7,423 munitions in 2019 — that’s the highest number of bombs released in nearly a decade.

In 2018, U.S. warplanes dropped 7,362 bombs — the second highest total in a year thus far since AFCENT began publishing the number of munitions released in Afghanistan.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...unitions-dropped-reaches-nearly-10-year-high/

 

in all of reality if a third party ever came to prominence where they legitimately stood a chance at winning anything significant they would probably simply replace one of the other parties and it would become to party again this has happened in our history where do you think Republicans came from they were in third party. The first president elected for the Republican party was Abraham Lincoln. Before that you had Federalists you had the whig party you had Democrats. When a third party comes up to challenge the status quo it replaces one of the two parties and becomes one of the two parties

This is why you should always be against government power it wouldn't matter if there were a thousand parties it would still work this way. People with power tend to abuse it.

 

What is the big deal about either of those figures? Probably should've been ten times as many.

 

Probably, based on what? You like seeing people being blown up?

 

The more groups that have to share the power, the less each have.

I would love to see us end our current system and go to a parliamentary system with dozens of parties