Syria

Poll Finds Opposition to Intervention in Syria May Be Higher Among Military Than General Public

Military personnel, too, skeptical of war

|

use it or lose it doesn't apply
US Navy

Public opinion polls consistently show an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to intervening in Syria, even as they accept that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons. Now an unscientific poll by the Military Times shows 75 percent of active duty military personnel out of 750 polled opposing air strikes in the US. The Times reports:

For many troops, money is a key consideration. Troops question the cost of bombing Syria at a time when budget cuts are shrinking their pay raises, putting their benefits package at risk and forcing some of their friends to separate involuntarily.

"We don't have money for anything else but we have a couple hundred million dollars to lob some Tomahawks and mount an expensive campaign in Syria?" said Army Sgt. 1st Class Chris Larue, a 39-year-old maintenance expert at Fort Eustis, Va., referring to the precision-guided missiles that are likely to be used in any strike.

The debate about striking Syria is also revealing a strain of isolationism growing inside a battle-weary military that has spent more than a decade supporting high-tempo war operations overseas.

"People are just sick of it," said Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Harvey, a nuclear-trained officer who works at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia.

"It's like the old pre-World War II isolationism, I hear grumblings of that. People would rather withdraw all our troops and let the rest of the world figure out what to do. I think there is a lot of credence to that argument."

As Jacob Sullum wrote in his column today: so many isolationists!

Check out Reason-Rupe polling on Syria and intervention here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Russian Lawmakers Call for Arms to Iran if Syria Is Attacked

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Don’t wanna be first!

  2. Well this probably takes the prize for least stunning news of the day. Guys are plain burned-out.

    1. I also suspect it’s because few in the military want to do a pointless “pinprick” strike that won’t change anything. Either fight to win, for the interests of the United States, or don’t fight at all.

      1. And they know this isn’t a fight worth fighting hard – and even if it was, Obama isn’t willing to do it.

        1. And fighting on the side of Al Qaeda must put some damper on enthusiasm.

          1. Us military types really do like to know we are on the side of the good guys in a fight.

    2. As a 19-yr ltcol working in the p-gon, I agree that mil are probably more disapproving than the public, but not from the “war-weary” angle. We’ve discussed it in the office and we’re all more along the line of the MajGen Scales: the whole thing makes no sense from a principles of war standpoint. If there were a clearly defined objective and end-point you’d see much less resistance from the military, recent operations and “weariness” aside

  3. With all the sh*t going on the middle east, why wouldn’t we want to isolate ourselves from that?

  4. Well those cruise missiles were just sitting around gathering dust, might as well bomb something with ’em.

    1. Because we are not mindless jerks?

  5. The “isolationism!” thing is so freaking annoying. Firstly, because a lot of people seem to think they just have to yell “isolationism” and they win the argument. Secondly, because it’s amazingly historically ignorant. Pre-WWII isolationism? Let’s see, we were involved in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, intervention in a bunch of Latin American countries over a span of decades, World War I, intervention in the Russian Revolution, overthrowing the government of Hawaii, US Marines getting involved in the Boxer Rebellion, etc. You know, total isolationist stuff.

    1. They also only say ‘isolationism’ when it comes to warfare. If you’re against intervention, they call you an isolationist. For some reason they never talk about isolationism when it comes to free trade. Libertarians differ sometimes on immigration, but libertarians are always very pro-free trade.

      How can someone who believes that we should trade with every other country on the planet possibly be an isolationist? Does foreign policy only count if you’re planning to bomb someone?

      1. -but libertarians are always very pro-free trade.

        Well, sadly, not always when it comes to free trade involving labor (immigration).

        1. While I think a workers visa is a good idea. If only to limit the people on the welfare roles. Yeah you are still being silly.

      2. Some of the last remaining true classical liberals of that era were denounced for isolationism, likely as much to do with their opposition to carving the world up into trade zones as it had to do with warfare.

      3. In fairness, some libertarians are against liberalized immigration regimes and occasionally wander into conspiracy about free trade agreements that are utter nonsense (NAFTA super-highway, anyone?) — these views tend to correlate with those libertarians who are most inflexible on foreign policy (e.g., Rockwell and co.).

        None of that should invalidate the completely rational opposition to Syria, “isolationists” aside.

        1. The trade zones of the 20s and 30s were pretty much arms, embargo and alliance pacts, so I certainly don’t touch on NAFTA and the EU when I mentioned the history there.

          1. Free trade in the interwar period sucked. As with most things pertaining to political freedom, almost every Euro country was significantly freer to trade with each other and the rest of the world during the imperialist, monarchist, mean, nasty, no good, rapacious period prior to WWI, than they were during the wonderful, perfect, delightful, and democratic interwar period. The only times we’ve ever really had global free trade is when relatively liberal imperialist powers have asserted that their citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and property be protected abroad. “Multilateral free trade zones” that aren’t what you describe are almost always the result of the intervention of those imperialist great powers.

            All that said, methinks NAFTA was an imperfect but substantial improvement in our trade situation during the 90s. I’d rather have had Paul’s perfect solution if that had been on the table… but it wasn’t.

    2. Wasn’t “isolationism” really just a slur to imply that the opponents of US intervention into Europe were a bunch of backwards reactionary, parochial hicks?

      Pre-WWII isolationism? Let’s see, we were involved in the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, intervention in a bunch of Latin American countries over a span of decades, World War I, intervention in the Russian Revolution, overthrowing the government of Hawaii, US Marines getting involved in the Boxer Rebellion, etc. You know, total isolationist stuff.

      Not to mention Henry Cabot Lodge, who helped scuttled the Versailles Treaty, was no non-interventionist. And I doubt very many of the “isolationists” opposed every single interaction with other counties.

  6. It would have been nice if the Military Times had picked somebody literate to comment.

    “Isolationist” is basically a slur used to shame people for not being sufficiently hawkish. Yet, the Lt. Commander, whom I’m sure has many fine qualities, seems not to understand this, and accepts the term as though it’s a valid description. He even alludes to a pre-WWII mentality, implicitly accepting the premise that anybody who opposes more-or-less random wars for the purpose of aggrandizing the current president is a Nazi sympathizer or appeaser.

    Finally, when he says, “I think there is a lot of credence to that argument,” he almost certainly means, “I think there is a lot of validity to that argument.” Good grief. I get that the two words are used in similar contexts — if something is true, you should believe it — but they have actual meanings that are helpful to know if you’re going to communicate effectively.

    Maybe the reporter, who presumably has strong communication skills, could have helped the poor guy out.

    /Rant

    1. Most people do not speak very well.

      That said, what do you expect? Not everybody parses their words with a mental scalpel when, and he wasn’t evaluating the validity of any argument, because no argument was presented. He was only indicating his agreement with the unstated argument’s conclusion.

      1. Not everybody uses the fucking preview button, either.

    2. “Isolationist”-(noun)-A person who refuses to take up the White Man’s Burden and teach foreigners their proper place.

  7. After the administrations swift and decisive response to the events in Benghazi I can’t understand why the military would be so opposed to following the DEAR LEADER in to glorious battle.

  8. I made the mistake of turning on Hardball with Chris Matthews. The first segment had a graphic at the bottom of the screen that said ‘How Obama got his Groove Back’ which, given that Matthews sees racism everywhere, seems pretty racist.

    The next segment had John Morse from Colorado once again claiming that the Republicans suppressed the vote. He ignored the fact that the mail ballot bill was overturned by a court because it was unconstitutional and had nothing to do with the Republicans. The people who got it overturned were members of the Libertarian Party.

    All in all, a banner night for that bloated corpse they set up at a desk and named Chris Matthews.

    1. Never watch Chris Matthews unless it is on youtube and you know he gets especially embarrassed by someone else.

      Also, please see my responses to your last comment in the P.M. links thread.

      I’m not looking to argue, I just want you to understand my position and not a strawman caricature of it.

      I feel like I was unfairly attacked and people (like *ahem* H.M. and ZG) called me a liar while simultaneously making claims that I had said ‘x’ when I had in fact said the opposite multiple times.

      Also, I feel like I was much more able to concisely articulate my position just now than when I was arguing with 6 different people all once including people accusing me of saying things I never actually said.

      1. I really don’t care. I’ll read your comment and consider your point, but I have no desire to continue this conversation.

      2. Christ on a cracker Plopper. This shit again? Let. It. Go.

        If your skin is that thin you should probably not hang around here.

        1. It’s really HM’s comments where he called me a liar and claimed I had said something when literally like two hours before I had said the opposite.

          I don’t think it’s too much to ask people to be honest when they’re making their arguments.

          1. Perhaps you should parse through the last three years of Tony and Shrike comments. That will give you a minefield of things to bitch about. You can whine to your hears content.

    2. They’ll have to start calling it Blueballs with Chris Matthew if Obama’s Presidency keeps failing to achieve any of its goals or pass any of its agenda items.

  9. use it or lose it doesn’t apply

    Use it or lose it always applies. This time of year its all the PMs, PEOs, Directors, Generals and Colonels can think about.

    We need a new law. All program managers get back 10% of every dollar they end up under budget.

  10. Poll, eh?

  11. Eddie Murphy and Snoop [Insert animal here] make a decent reggae song.

    Overall, I liked Murphy’s parts better than Snoop’s.

    1. I was wondering, is it possible H.M., that I could get an apology from you for calling me a liar while you simultaneously misquoted me Saturday night?

      1. It would be possible, if what you stated were true.

        Unfortunately for your oversensitive pedophile ass, what actually happened is that your premises were shown to be false via my employment of reductio ad absurdum. When your statements were shown to be absurd, you began to throw a hissy fit, which now seems to be in its fifth day.

        Hope that helps.

        1. No, I’m upset that you completely misrepresented my argument and then went on to call me a liar.

          Here is proof.

          https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989237
          https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3989291

          If you want to deny it and keep on using ad homs and strawmen then go ahead if that is indeed the level of your character which seems to be on a level beneath many pedophiles.

          1. Here is a summary of what my actual argument was: https://reason.com/blog/2013/09…..nt_3997548

            As I’ve told Irish. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but I won’t let it go if you continue to falsely represent me while attacking strawmen and attacking my character.

            1. Holy shit dude, let it go. Nobody wants to read your incessant whining.

            2. And, if you noticed, no one, including myself, disagrees with you on that. However, you’re leaving out the part of your argument where you stated child prostitution wasn’t inherently coercive and stated that any belief to the contrary was “nanny-stateism”. That’s the part most of us were attacking you on.

              1. That’s not quite a fair assessment of my argument either. It was more along the lines that there isn’t some definitive age that before ‘x’ it is coercive and after ‘x’ it isn’t. (Other than that set arbitrarily by law)
                I was just arguing that people were using the same sort of arguments “nanny-statists”/”we must protect you from yourself” crowd use to defend their positions.

                Anyway, I’m just going to drop it at this point.

                Sorry for annoying everyone. I guess I really am too thinned skin to bother commenting here anymore.

          2. Plopper….when I was a kid that was the slang name my brother had for turds that made an audible splash that could be heard outside a bathroom door. Everytime I see your name that is what I think of, and your arguments certainly fit in that catagory.

            Oh, and are you the pedophile that went nuts email-arguing with me a year or two ago when I said here in the comments that pedos are the lowest form of life?

            1. No, I am not a pedophile and I’ve never emailed you before.

              Why is it that because I’m calling someone out for accusing me of being a liar all while totally misrepresenting what I had said means that I must be a pedophile and probably the same person as someone who once had an email argument with you. Really?

              Also, that is basically where I came up with the handle, “Plopper”. Because I knew I would get shit on from people reacting emotionally to my arguments.

              I may get emotional myself, but I believe it’s warranted when someone attacks my character personally instead of going after my arguments.

              1. “….I must be a pedophile and probably the same person as someone who once had an email argument with you. Really?”

                No, not really. I was just asking. that person acted much the way you are acting now so I was just wondering. You seemed familiar. Emotional, over-sensitive, not willing to let anything go, obsessing over some perceived slight for days on end…..

                Around here you just tell someone to go fuck themselves in the most colorful terms you can muster and come back the next day all refreshed and start over.

                1. In the future I’ll remember this.

          3. Listen, I’m going to explain this in monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon, as you’re not very bright. If you feel that your argument was misrepresented, then that’s due to a combination of your poor reasoning skills and choice of vocabulary; it’s not due to any willful attempt by me to misrepresent your views. When you make an argument, the onus is on you to make sure it is understood correctly.

            Secondly, you continue to show your ignorance of reductio ad absurdum as a powerful tool of logical reasoning. (Here’s Daniel Dennett on the subject.) What you incorrectly term as “lying” is actually taking your stated premises and showing them to be false by taking them to their inevitable absurd and false conclusion. It is obvious that you do not possess the mental and emotional maturity to engage in this kind of rational discourse, which I’m guessing is also the reason you dropped out of high school with warm, salty tears of rage flowing down your chubby, acne-ridden cheeks.

            1. Finally, I couldn’t care less about you crying “ad hom” and “strawmen”, for even if you identified them correctly, which you don’t, this is not a forum of scholarly discourse. I don’t need to “play” scholar, I am one and I am committed to valid and sound reasoning as a tool of finding truth and explicating knowledge. If you submit your argument as a scholarly paper in an academic journal, I would be more than happy to engage your arguments with professional courtesy and purely rational discourse. However, as you may have noticed this is not an academic symposium; it is the comments section of an internet blog. The rules of scholarly discourse do not apply. I am free to show my contempt of you and your argument in as colorful language as I wish.

              In closing, I want to make it clear that I have no wish to engage you further in this topic or any other topic. I think you are merely looking for the imprimatur of “liberty” to justify your sick desire to fuck children, and I shall have no part in that. In a sane and just world, a long time ago, two bullets would have been placed in your chest and one bullet would have been placed in your skull.

              Alas, our world is neither sane nor just!

              1. But I have no desire to “fuck children”. That’s just ad hom from you. How am I not applying ad hom correctly here?

                Just because this isn’t necessarily a forum for “scholarly debate”, doesn’t mean I can’t have some expectations of honestly.

            2. But you didn’t even have my base assumptions right, so there was no way for you to prove they were false through reductio ad absurdum.

              You just skimmed over some of what I said and them assumed I had said something totally different.

              1. But you didn’t even have my base assumptions right, so there was no way for you to prove they were false through reductio ad absurdum.

                One last time.

                If you feel that your argument was misrepresented, then that’s due to a combination of your poor reasoning skills and choice of vocabulary; it’s not due to any willful attempt by me to misrepresent your views. When you make an argument, the onus is on you to make sure it is understood correctly.

                I’m done.

              2. “Also, that is basically where I came up with the handle, “Plopper”. Because I knew I would get shit on from people reacting emotionally to my arguments.”

                Yet here you are getting shit on. Perhaps you are a poopophile or whatever they call people with a fetish for being shit on. Scatophile?

                I saw the movie ‘Trollhunter’ the other night. I enjoyed it immensely. Anyone who hasnt seen it should.
                Perhaps we have a new species of troll with us, akin to the concern troll. Since I am the discoverer I name it the Maso-Concern troll.

                1. So your theory is this new Maso-Concern Troll is here because he likes the abuse?

                2. Don’t lump me in with concern trolls.

                  Lump me in for being bitter about my childhood and just wanting someone to actually make a good argument to me why I shouldn’t have just been able to make my own decisions on many matters which the adults in my life thought they knew better than me about and instead just fucked up my life as a result.

                  1. You are lumped in with the concern trolls because you keep whining ” You people dont argue right!” and Masochists because you enjoy getting shit on. Your name indicates that that is the reason you came here and fully expected it. Congrats, you were successful.

                    Add in that you are making this all about you and…..definitely Bi-polar personality disorder.

                    Get some therapy. BPD is the only personality disorder that can be mitigated with therapy. Then come back and talk. As it is you are just making all our skins crawl.

                    1. BDP = Borderline Personality Disorder, which I do not have.

                      So I’m getting the feeling you have no idea what you’re talking about. I have Bi-polar disorder, or once was diagnosed with it. But it’s hardly an issue at this point.

                      My problem is more that I’m obsessive compulsive.

                3. Also, that is basically where I came up with the handle, “Plopper”. Because I knew I would get shit on from people reacting emotionally to my arguments.

                  Do you randomly bring up the need to legalize child prostitution in other forums?

                  1. How did I randomly bring it up when we first had our argument?

                    You were talking about child prostitution in some countries and I was merely taking issue with the idea that they were immoral for not enforcing AoC laws, and instead insisted they were immoral for allowing child slavery.

                    But for some reason everyone started accusing me of being “in favor of child prostitution”.

                    Again, I’m just disappointed that reason commenters are so prone to make a “muh chillunz!” knee-jerk emotional arguments without actually even reading what I was saying. Especially while being attacked by like 5 people at once.

                    1. If we’re really going to do this…

                      Read the thread again. The context of the conversation was that American once again went off into his fantasy wank-land to assert that East Asians are genetic ubermensch who represent all that is holy and good in this world. Irish and I pointed out many aspects of East Asian society and politics which contradicted that notion, *including* child prostitution.

                      No one said anything about AoC, and child prostitution was itself ancillary to the point Irish and I were making.

                      You brought AoC into the argument, not us.

                    2. I probably misunderstood then as I had been previously arguing with someone not long before that regarding Betsy Karasik’s statement on that case with the teacher and the 14 year old student.

                      I was rather annoyed at how many times I saw her attacked personally with no one actually making a well reasoned rebuttal to any of her arguments, some of which to me made perfect sense.

                      So it was likely me projecting stuff onto your convo that wasn’t actually there. I just get bothered by how easily people will throw away all reason regarding adolescents and children when it comes to things of a sexual nature, and when I saw child prostitution brought up I assumed it was going to turn into something similar.

                      I apologize.

                      Even if some of my ideas may seem absurd to you, they’re definitely no more absurd than how most people treat this subject and it bothers me because I feel like a great deal of damage was caused to me as a child as a result of this when there was no reason to make it out to be such a big deal and it caused me a lot of unnecessary stress and guilt as a child and I believe it led me to doing a few things I still feel guilty about doing when I was a child.

                    3. If you would like to hear the full story of what all happened to me as a child in regards to things of a sexual nature I’ll gladly tell the story.

                      Maybe this will shed some light onto why I’m so touchy about these sorts of subjects.

                      I’m not going to bother anyone if no one wants to hear it though. Besides, I’d rather be doing other things, I’ve wasted far too much of my time on here arguing over stupid shit that will never matter in the real world.

      2. I was wondering, is it possible H.M., that I could get an apology

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

        Welcome to the Jungle, fresh-meat.

        And don’t drop the soap. You wouldn’t be the first thing Warty and SugarFree have shared.

        1. I don’t know why he’s bitching. I have had 100 post, profanity laced arguments with many commenters here, all of those arguments filled with violent imagery and personal insults.

          I’ve never seen someone drag shit from another argument into threads like 2 days later. People are generally good about keeping their shit shows to one thread.

          1. Nah, It’s just I used to have respect for many of the commenters here, including H.M.

            I’ve been a long time lurker and I occasionally comment.

            And I’m extremely disappointed how many times ad hom has been slung and how many strawmen used against me by people I had previously respected and agreed with on almost everything.

            1. Consider; Maybe they arent the problem.

            2. Do you know how much of a drama queen you sound like right now?

              “I used to respect HM and other posters on here, until they started to argue with me in the exact same way that they argue with other people. Me!”

              1. or

                Also I need to slow down on the drinking I’ve gained way too much weight lately.

            3. BPD comes to mind.

              1. Oh I am definitely bi-polar. But any medication just makes me worse off for other reasons and doesn’t even really help that much.

                1. thought so.

          2. Even the John-MNG Wars rarely spilled over from the A.M. Links.

    1. OT: Mulatto is a liar who uses strawmen and ad hom to win arguments while simultaneously erroneously calling his opponent a liar.

      1. Dude.

        I have no idea to what you’re referring, and don’t much give a shit. But your whininess is fucking boring.

        Do us all a favor. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

        1. Wow, plopper is making friends fast.

          1. He’s coming in, plopping a turd on the living room floor, then complaining about how bad the joint stinks.

            1. So there’s nothing unreasonable about wanting an apology for being called a liar when I can provide proof the exact opposite is true and it was the person accusing me of being a liar which was indeed the liar.

              Yet I’m the one being attacked here… at “Reason”?

              1. Who cares? You aren’t being made fun of anymore for any reason other than your incessant need to bring up this bizarre argument from several days ago.

                No one would care if you just moved on. I’ve gotten in fights with people here and no one bothers bringing the argument into another thread because it is unbelievably annoying. Just stop it and everyone will move on.

                1. Fine. I am rather thin-skinned and I should learn to lighten up sometime.

                  I won’t bring it up again.

                  Also I need to slow down on the drinking I’ve gained way too much weight lately.

              2. Yes, it is unreasonable because it will never happen and the rest of us who don’t care are going to block you for adding more noise than signal.

                Furthermore, drink.

              3. Yes there is – this is the fucking internet and your argument was 2 days ago. To keep it going now is like argueing whether cavemen should rub two sticks together or bang rocks to start a fire – its prehis-fucking-storic.

                Christ on a cracker you make PB seem tolerable.

            2. Come on now. Mulatto hurt his feelings. The commentariat is all about feelings and shit.

              1. Jesus Christ! Even when I freaked out after Ken Schultz implied I was a redneck in blackface I didn’t get this bitchy….did I?

                1. My Mary Stack sensor instrument is twerking.

                  1. Yours twerks? I am imagining a Mary doll that has it’s butt bobble instead of its head. (shivers)

                    Mine just has a dial and a needle. Not as much fun or horror inducing.

                2. Maybe! Without having read whatever thread you pantsed him in I find his basic accusation plausible based on your past behavior in threads where I disagree with you, but if I eternally bitched about everyone who ever demonstrated poor/unfair argument techniques around here I’d make Shriek look like a well reasoned contributor who demonstrates a healthy diversity of behaviors.

                  1. Well, logos is just one branch of the tree that is rhetoric. Ethos and pathos are equally valid modes of argumentative persuasion.

                    Plus, I’ve never denied being a crusty ol’ argumentative son-of-a-bitch.

                    I think it’s part of my charm.

                    1. I’ve never denied being a crusty ol’ argumentative son-of-a-bitch.

                      That should be on the libertarian coat of arms, with the honey badger as our heraldic animal.

                3. “…. I freaked out after Ken Schultz implied I was a redneck in blackface…”

                  Holy shit, that made me laugh out loud. I missed that one, what a shame.

                  Also, that is completely absurd. I take it you dont conform to Ken’s stereotypical idea of a non-white, cuz we all know you can tell all about a mans intelligence, character and mannerisms by the color of his face.

                  I bet you make up for it by having a really bad ass walk.

  12. For many troops, money is a key consideration. Troops question the cost of bombing Syria at a time when budget cuts are shrinking their pay raises, putting their benefits package at risk and forcing some of their friends to separate involuntarily.

    Am I to understand then that if it weren’t for EVUL SEKWSTRASHUN which cut nothing more than the rate of budget increase, you’d be good with bombing Syria?

    1. I dont think captain zero constantly giving the military a stick in the eye helps his standing among the troops.

      Jugears gives them the finger over and over and then turns around and expects unquestioning obedience and loyalty. The guy’s narcissism is off the scale.

      I am convinced, though I dont remember the details about why, that Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran was deliberately thrown for the same reasons.

      I think he is just pointing that out.

      1. “Jugears gives them the finger over and over and then turns around and expects unquestioning obedience and loyalty”….I meant to add… “when he needs them.” at the end of that sentence.

      2. I am convinced, though I dont remember the details about why, that Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran was deliberately thrown for the same reasons.

        No, Operation Eagle Claw was underway, and failed for a number of reasons, the main one being a Marine helicopter crashed into a C-130 inside of Iran during a sandstorm.

  13. So can anyone tell my why US “isolationism” and “imperialism” are both bad at the same time?

    1. My personal view is that US imperialism had mixed (but mostly positive) results for the indigenous populations affected, but that it had deleterious effects on the US and its Constitutional, pro-liberty norms.

      US annexationism, OTOH, had generally positive effects (liberty-wise) for residents of the new territories as well as the US at large. The Mex-American war, for example, has greatly limited the damage that the Mexican government has done to the continent — would that we would have annexed more of northern Mexico and incorporated more of its citizenry into our country; how much better off the continent and its residents would have been!

  14. TBH, I almost feel bad about rescinding my characterization of Plopper as a pedophile. Not because I have any evidence that he is or that it was a worthy observation on my part, but because I feel sort of left out of all the massive butthurt going on above.

    Why do HM and Irish get to have their own obsessive commenter? Whose buttons do I have to push to get a one-issue trolling wunderkind to follow me around, anyways?

    1. Belgians. Choose an side in the Flemish vs. Walloon debate and just wait. It will come.

      1. Ah so that’s why Douglas Adams made it a profanity in his books!

      2. THERE IS NO DEBATE – DOWN WITH THE WALLOON BASTARDZ!!!

    2. Aww, I wuv u 2 TITs.

      Can I squeeze you TIT?

      I’ll follow you around and respond to all your comments too if you’re feeling lonely. Then maybe later we can shack up for a while.

      1. (First comment got ate because apparently it doesn’t like less than/greater than symbols and I made a heart using one of them plus a 3).

        It must have thought it was an HTML tag or something.

        1. Oh and I am not a single issue poster! I have been a dick to people over their opinions about banking as well!

          🙁

          1. Just when I thought you could not get more annoying…

          2. Holy fuck, are you the guy who was stalking a poster a few weeks ago about free banking and constantly posting articles about free banking in every thread?

            What is going on? Is this real life?

            1. I don’t believe I mentioned that in more than one thread. There might have been a second one, but I don’t even remember that. Certainly there was no “stalking” going on.

              I’m just thin skinned when attacked personally, especially when called a liar.

              So it could be me you’re thinking of, but with other facts being way off, such as the “every thread”, thing.

              1. It was also a thread specifically about central banking if I remember correctly.

            2. Welcome to the asylum. He has already admitted to being bi-polar.

  15. The premise that the opinions of people in the military matter when it comes to foreign policy always confuses me.

    I will never forget, way back in Gulf War I, all of those in the reserves who were being called to active duty, that gave interviews telling how they never wanted to fight or anything, but just wanted free college educations.

    I am all for so called isolationism. The beauty of the Constitution is that it didn’t account for standing army’s which can be used for fun foreign adventures but only a Navy.

    I completely agree with those in the military who wish to not fight in foreign adventures. Let’s bring the boys home! And then we can fire 2/3s of them.

    1. “The premise that the opinions of people in the military matter when it comes to foreign policy always confuses me.”

      They are not automatons, they are people. You are dealing with people.

      Soldiers who have an axe to grind can do their jobs in a zillion subtle ways that will fuck up all kinds of operations. Soldiers who are 100% sold on the necessity of something can kick ass. As the old saying goes ‘It doesnt matter who has more troops, who has more tanks or airplanes, the most dedicated side wins.”

    2. I think firing 50% is a more workable figure. As much as it pains me to say it….the Navy should be most spared and the AF next…gulp, leaving the Army to make more cuts. The USMC is already small enough, leave ’em mostly alone.

      Of course, there are soooo many flag ranks that can go, along with their posses. And the civilian DoD cuts could/should be legendary.

  16. lol, the US cant even fix Detroit! Time to stop playing “World POlice” and deal with our own problems!

    http://www.AnonWorkz.tk

    1. anonbot tells it like it is

    2. Honestly? The best thing for Detroit would be if the federal government would bomb the shit out of the rest of the world – then they’d leave Detroit alone to fix its own problems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.